Chhabi Janghel @ Raju v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 8337 of 2018 • Chhabi Janghel @ Raju, S/o Lallu Ram Janghel (wrongly mentioned the name of the father of the applicant as Lallu Janghel in the rejection order), aged about 25 years, R/o Village- Achholi, Near Shishu Manas Bhawan, Post Office & Police Station - Urla, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station - Urla, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent __________________________________________________________________ For Applicant :

Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Shri Adil Minhaj, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 13/12/2018

1. The Applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 132/2018, registered at Police Station- Urla, DistrictRaipur, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. In this case, Applicant is the husband of the deceased Bhuneshwari Janghel. Their marriage was solemnized two years prior to the date of incident i.e. 28.03.2018. Allegedly after the marriage, Applicant used to consume liquor and harras/ill-treat the deceased. Due to this, the deceased Bhuneshwari Janghel committed suicide on 28.03.2018 by hanging. The merg report was lodged by the father of the present Applicant. After merg enquiry, offence has been registered and the Applicant has been taken into custody on 03.04.2018.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the

Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that there is no any evidence available on record on the basis of which any offence under Section 306 of the IPC can be made out against the present Applicant. He further submits that charge-sheet has already been filed. The Applicant is in custody since 03.04.2018 and trial will take some time. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence collected by the prosecution and further considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, Applicant is in custody since 03.04.2018 and trial is likely to take some time, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release him on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash