Smt. Sant Kali Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3081 of 2017

1. Smt. Sant Kali Yadav, W/o. Lakhan Lal, Aged About 55 Years.

2. Smt. Teejan Bai Yadav, W/o. Surendra Kumar, Aged About 26 Years.

Both R/o. Village Bhatali Kala, Police Station Jarhagaon, DistrictMungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Station House Officer, Police Station- Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgrh. ---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicants :

Mr. S.B.Pandey, Advocate For Respondent :

Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 01.05.2017 1.

This is the second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 79/2016 registered at Police Station- Jarhagaon, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 149 & 302 of Indian Penal Code. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.12.2016 in MCRC No.7796 of 2016 with liberty to repeat the same after examination of the eye-witness. 2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.04.2016 the deceased Ramsahay Yadav was coming alongwith Dukhharan Yadav from Khursi to attend Chhatthi program in the village and when they reached near Bhathalikala they were attacked by the

applicants whereby Ramasahay sustained injuries and subsequent he died. Thereby, the offence has been committed. 3.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that out of 17 witnesses, 10 witnesses have already been examined and the eye-witness Dukhharan Yadav (PW-7) has not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, the applicants may be released on bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

5.

Perused the statement of Dukhharan Yadav (PW-7). The cross examination was also made. At this stage, since out of 17 witnesses, 10 witnesses have been examined, it would not be proper for this Court to evaluate the entire case by picking up few lines of the statement of one witness, as it would amount to usurp the power of the trial Court and adjudicate the case on merit while hearing the bail application. It appears that the prosecution is at the fag end, therefore, considering the same, I am not inclined to entertain this second bail application.

6.

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

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok