Bhagirathi Kashyap v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 3573 of 2017 Bhagirathi Kashyap, S/o. Bishram Kashyap (wrongly mentioned Vishram in the bail rejection order of court below), aged about 24 years, R/o. VillageAvaridh, P.S. - Navagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ----Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station House Officer, Police Station - Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 21/06/2017 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. 32/2017, registered at Police Station - Navagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 457 & 380 of Indian Penal Code. The first bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 24.03.2017 in M.Cr.C. No.1633/2017. 2.

As per the prosecution case, a report was made by Dineshwar Kashyap on 15.02.2017 that his mobile was stolen on 26.10.2016 and during investigation the mobile was seized from the present applicant, which was identified.

Page No.2 3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case of theft and he has not stolen mobile but it was found on the road and there has been a delay of lodging of report of four months, which is not explained. 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.

5.

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

Perused the earlier bail rejection order dated 24.03.2017, which was dismissed on merits and also perused the statement of Dineshwar Kashyap, wherein he has not stated that mobile was missing and on the contrary in examination-in-chief it was stated that mobile while was got charging near window in the night and in the morning it was found to be stolen. Considering the same, this Court can not appreciate the evidence to hold a trial. Earlier the bail application was dismissed on the ground that while the applicant was convicted and is in jail his jail sentence was suspended and after coming out from jail, he has committed the offence. Taking into the totality and the facts and circumstances of the case, 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