Patul @ Abdul Majid v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3306 of 2017 • Patul @ Abdul Majid S/o Late Sahul Hamid, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kansabel, Police Station & Tahsil Sitapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer, Police Station Premnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate.

For the Respondent :

Mr. Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 17-05-2017

1. This is second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 117 of 2016 registered at P.S. Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 302, 394, 397, 201, 412, 414 and 120-B of IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 26/27-9-2015 applicant along with other co-accused persons committed murder of driver and cleaner of Trailor No.CG-12-S 4823 namely Bodhar Prasad & Nilesh Kumar and threw their dead bodies in Kataroli forest. Further they looted the Trailor and took the same to Haryana State and sold it. Subsequently, on the basis of GPS system location of trailor was identified and thereby the aforesaid offence has been committed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that this is second bail petition for grant of bail and earlier first bail petition was dismissed on merits on 29-8-2016. He would further submit that the allegations against the applicant is that he along with other co-accused

persons committed loot of trailor which is allegedly to have been seized from show room. The owner of the show room is Ankan Kumar Gupta who has been examined as PW/10 and he has not supported the case of prosecution. The applicant has been inculpated on the basis of memorandum statement of other co-accused. He would further submit that out of total 47 witnesses, 12 witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of prosecution, charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 17-12-2015 and no further investigation is required, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail.

5. Perused the case diary and the documents annexed to the bail application.

6. From perusal of the documents, It appears that out of 47 witnesses, 12 have already been examined and the incident is of the year 2015 therefore, at this stage, I do not find any reason to adjudicate the matter for consideration of bail by evaluating the statements of witnesses as it would amount to usurping the power of trial Court. In view of this I am not inclined to allow this bail application.

7. Accordingly, the instant bail petition is also liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial. Sd/- (GOUTAM BHADURI) Judge Raju