Narayan Prasad And ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4090 of 2017

1. Narayan Prasad S/o Anad Ram Jangde Aged About 28 Years.

2. Jagjivan Ram S/o Anand Ram Jangde Aged About 34 Years.

3. Dilharan Jangde S/o Parmatmaram Jangde Aged About 19 Years.

4. Dharmendra @ Shakti S/o Atmaram Jangde Aged About 29 Years All the above applicants are R/o Village- Ruhi, Police Station & Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer Police Station- Patan Civil & Revenue District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For applicants - Shri Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State - Shri Anupam Dubey, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 23/06/2017 1.

This is second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The earlier bail application was disposed of on 7/12/2016 vide M.Cr.C. No.7739 of 2016 with liberty to repeat the same in case trial is not concluded within a further period of three months. 2.

The applicants have preferred this application for grant of bail as they are arrested in connection with Crime No. 114/2016 registered in Police Station Patan Civil & Revenue District Durg (CG) for offence punishable under sections 147, 149, 302, 323 of IPC. 3.

As per the prosecution case, on 8/08/2016 complaint was made by one Anjori Ram Banjare that in meeting of the society when dispute broke out Anjori Ram Banjare and others were assaulted and the applicants have assaulted Amar Das brutally thereby he died.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this is second bail application, all the applicants belong to one family and they have been inculpated in the crime whereas other persons were involved and direct allegations have not been attributed. He further submits that when the first bail application was disposed of liberty was given to repeat the same in case trial is not concluded within a further period of three months from 7/12/2016. It is submitted that trial has not been concluded, therefore this present bail application.

5.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 6.

Perusal of the statement of PW-1 and primarily examination-in-chief allegations have been attributed. Now contradiction and omission which has been stated in the cross-examination can only be appreciated only when all the evidence are examined by the trial court. At this stage no opinion can be given with respect to the commission of crime as it may prejudice right of the parties including prosecution and defence. Considering the totality of the case and the statement, without any observation on the merits, I am not inclined to entertain this second bail application.

7.

Accordingly, the second bail application is dismissed. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE gouri