Avinash Verma @ Rinku v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 1139 of 2017 Avinash Verma @ Rinku, S/o. Yavan Kumar Verma, Aged About 23 Years, R/o. Village Charoud, Police Station- Dharsiwa, Civil and Revenue DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh. ----Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station -Dharsiwa, District -Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr.P.P. Sahu with Mr. R.K. Pali, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashok Swarnakar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 15/03/2017 1.

This is the second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.344/2015, registered at Police Station - Dharsiwa, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 302, 380, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.07.2016.

2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.10.2015, the applicant along with other co-accused Purnendra Sahu and Rajveer Singh after consuming liquor on the issue of unnatural sex, altercation started in between them. Thereafter, the applicant along with Purnendra Sahu committed murder of Rajveer Singh by slitting his neck. Thereby the offence has been committed.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has only been inculpated based on the memorandum statement of the

Page No.2 present applicant and witnesses to the memorandum statement namely Khelu Ram and Mohan Nishad have not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, the counsel prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and would submit that as per the statement of R.K. Jain, Director Finger Print, the finger print on the glass have been matches to the finger print of the applicant, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.

5.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6.

Perused the statement of S.K. Jain, Director, Finger Print. Considering the statement, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7.

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

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram