Devvrat v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 8643 of 2018 • Devvrat S/o Chandulal Verma Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Mopka, Police Station Bhatapara (Rural) District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent AND MCRC No. 7946 of 2018 • Anil Savra S/o Albela Savra Aged About 28 Years R/o Hathband, Tahsil And P. S. Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant (in MCRC 8643/2018) : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Applicant (in MCRC 7946/2018) : Ms. Richa Dwivedi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 07/12/2018 1.
Since both the cases arise out of same crime number, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2.
The applicants have preferred these bail applications under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail as they are arrested in
connection with Crime No. 01/2018 registered at Police StationSimga, Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 41 (1+4) of CRPC read with Section 379 of the IPC.
3.
As per prosecution story, on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused person namely Ravi Pandey total 21 mobile phones were seized from his possession, allegedly he used to purchase stolen mobile phones from the present applicants. On the basis of above, offence has been registered against the present applicants. The applicants are in custody since 22.08.2018.
4.
Learned Counsel for the applicants submit that both the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They further submit that the co-accused Ravi Pandey have already granted benefit of bail by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2018 passed in MCRC No. 7282/2018, the applicants are in custody since 22.08.2018 and trial will likely to take some time to conclude, therefore, the applicants may be released on bail.
5.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail applications.
6.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 7.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the fact that the co-accused Ravi Pandey has already granted benefit of bail by this Court, the applicants are in custody since 22.08.2018 and trial will likely to take some time to conclude, without further commenting on merit of the case, I am
inclined to release the applicants on bail.
8.
Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed. 9.
It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one local solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham