Saket Soni @ Lulu Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6527 of 2019 Saket Soni @ Lulu Soni, S/o Rampyare Sao, aged about 30 years, R/o Navhatta, Police Station Navhatta, District Rohtas (Bihar). ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG).

---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Praveen Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board 19.11.2019 1.

This is second bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant before this Court. 2.

Perused the case diary provided by the counsel for the State in connection with Crime No.07/2017 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja for the offence punishable under Section 412 of Indian Penal Code.

3.

The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 16.05.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.469/2019.

4.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.01.2017 in Manappuram Gold Loan Branch, Bramha Road, Ambikapur a dacoity was happened. 12 kg gold, worth Rs. 2,50,00,000/- and cash of Rs.1,54,000/- have looted by the dacoits. On the memorandum of coaccused Ajay @ Vishal @ Bhagirathi Chero, some golden ornaments weighted 451.18 grams gold, worth Rs.10 lakh were seized from the applicant.

5.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that Dharmendra Kumar Dubey (P.W.2) and Vinay Kumar Paswan (P.W.3), who are the witnesses of memorandum and seizure did not support the memorandum and seizure.

6.

On the other hand, counsel for the State opposed the bail application. However, he submitted that there is no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant as per police case diary. 7.

Prima facie it does not appear that the applicant is bonafide

purchaser.

8.

This is true that the detention period of the accused is a relevant factor while dealing with the bail application. But equally, it is also true that looking to the seriousness of the alleged offence and impact of granting bail to the applicant on society are more important and material factors while dealing with the bail application. 9.

This is also well settled legal principle that while dealing with the bail application, the Court can neither scrutinize the evidence nor appreciate the evidence. This is also well settled legal principle that while dealing with the bail application, the Court cannot touch the merits and demerits of the case.

10.

In the case in hand, Investigating Officer is to be examined. 11.

Prima facie it cannot be said that Section 412 of IPC does not attract in the case in hand.

12.

Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that it is not a fit case where the applicant be released on bail in the second round of litigation. Consequently, the second bail application is rejected.

13.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) JUDGE L/-