Keshav Patel (Malakar) v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 9577 of 2021 1.

Keshav Patel (Malakar), S/o Shri Jagarnathiya, Aged About 20 Years.

2.

Jogendra Patel (Malakar), S/o Shri Sheshdev Patel, Aged About 46 Years.

3.

Kaviraj Patel (Malakar), S/o Shri Sheshdev Patel, Aged About 31 Years.

All are Agriculturist, R/o Village- Barampura, Thana- Sariya, Tahsil- Baramkela, District- Raigarh (C.G.) --- Applicants

Versus

The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station- Sariya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondent ________________________________________________________ For Applicants :

Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate.

For State/ Respondent :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L.

________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 21/12 /2021 1.

This is the second bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to them, who have been arrested on 19.06.2020 in connection with Crime No. 60/2020, registered at Police StationSariya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 294, 323, 506, 307 of I.P.C. 2.

The first bail application filed by the applicants bearing MCRC No. 6153 of 2020 was dismissed as withdrawn by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 27.04.2020 reserving liberty in favour of the applicants to revive the prayer for grant of bail at an appropriate stage.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that injuredDileshwar Patel (PW-7) was declared hostile by the prosecution as per his court statement, wherein he has stated that he has

not suffered injury from any act of the applicants, but he has lost his balance while parking his motor-cycle and fell into drain and sustained injury on his head as well as on his body and while the cross-examination, Dileshwar Patel (PW-7) has reiterated the same and has denied the factum of assault by the applicants and also with regard to cause of injury sustained by him. He would further submit that Pankaj Malakar (PW-1) on whose strength, FIR has been lodged, has also been declared hostile by the prosecution as per his court statement, wherein he has also reiterated the same story, which has already been deposed by Dileshwar Patel.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that once the injured person has become hostile, there is no chance of conviction of the applicants and the applicants are in jail since 19.06.2020, hence, it is prayed that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the bail application would submit that in the medical report, there is clear allegation against the applicants regarding commission of offence and as per medical report, if proper treatment was not provided to the injured, he would succumb to death. Hence, the application for grant of bail may be rejected. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

7.

Considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the injured-Dileshwar Patel and the person on whose strength, the FIR has been lodged, have already been declared hostile by the prosecution and further considering the fact that the applicants are in jail since 19.06.2020, I am inclined to allow the bail application of the applicants.

8.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.

9.

It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail each of them on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.

25,000/- each with one surety each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. They shall appear before the trial court on each and every date given by the said trial court, till disposal of the trial.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun