Kalicharan Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4221 of 2017 Kalicharan Sahu, S/o. Shri Suresh Sahu, Aged About 20 Years, R/o. Sara Dhaneshwaram Bihar, At Present R/o. Village & Tahsil Baramkela, Police Station Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. Anupam Dubey, Dy. Govt. Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 07.07.2017 1.

This is the second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.68/2016 registered at Police Station- Baramkela, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 364, 365, 120-B/34 of Indian Penal Code. The first bail application was dismissed on merit on 13.02.2017 in MCRC No.661 of 2017.

2.

As per the prosecution case, on 28.08.2016, a report was made by the complainant that on 27.08.2016, one Raju Sahu has kidnapped the minor son of 4 years old on the pretext that an elephant will be shown to him and the accused took away the boy to a forest and while the boy was being taken away, it was seen by Hemant Nayak, aged about 11 years. Subsequently, the boy was confined and was kept in a four wheeler. However, when the other accused Raju Naik who was minor was cornered he divulged the fact that he alongwith the present applicant committed the crime and the boy was taken to forest.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the witness PW-9, Hemant Naik, who has seen, has stated that he has not identified the present applicant, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

4.

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

5.

Perused the statement of PW-8 & PW-9, wherein in Para 1, positive allegations have been made whereas contradiction appears to have been made about the identity in the cross-examination. Therefore, at this stage, it is not proper for this Court to evaluate the statement of the witnesses and give a finding while hearing the bail application, as it would amount to usurp the power of the trial Court. Considering the same and the fact that out of 16 witnesses, 10 witnesses have already been examined, I am not inclined to allow the instant second bail application and release the applicant on bail.

6.

Accordingly, the second bail application is dismissed. However, the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok