Chattisgarh High Court
Karan Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 August, 2021
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3574 of 2021
1.
Karan Nishad S/o Pusau Ram Nishad, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Near Ama Kua Chowk, Puraina, Old Bhilai, District Durg
(C.G.).
---- Applicant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Bhilai-3,
Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.).
---- Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Anand Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya
Order on Board
26/08/2021
1) The matter is heard through Video Conferencing.
2) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under
Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as he is in jail
since 10/03/2020 in connection with Crime No. 86/2020
registered at Police Station Bhilai-3, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)
for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal
Code.
3) As per the prosecution case on 09/03/2020 at around 09:00 PM
complainant Subhash Sharma was sitting alongwith one Govind
and another boy in front of his house. At that time the present
applicant came there and asked the complainant to
accompanying him for having liquor and when the complainant
refused, he assaulted him with knife on his neck in an attempt to
commit his murder.
4) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submits that
the injuries suffered by the victim is not grievous in nature. The
ingredients necessary for attracting the offence under Section
307 of Indian Penal Code are missing in this case. He further
submits that applicant has no criminal antecedents and there is
no apprehension of the applicant tampering with the evidence or
absconding, charge sheet has been filed, the applicant is in jail
since 10/03/2020 and trial is likely to take some time for its
disposal. Therefore, the applicant be released on bail.
5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
bail application. However, he submits that the applicant has no
criminal antecedents.
6) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7) In the matter of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40., the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed in Para-22 of the said judgment as under:
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in
custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of
great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that
some unconvicted persons should be held in custody
pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in
such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country,
it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty
enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be
punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not
been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be
deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will
tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most
extraordinary circumstances.
8) In the matter of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2020
arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5598 of 2020, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has reiterated certain factors which are to be
kept in mind while considering the matters for grant of bail to the
accused. In Para-57 of the said judgment, it has been observed
as under:
57. While considering an application for the grant of bail under
Article 226 in a suitable case, the Hight Court must
consider the settled factors which emerge from the
precedents of this Court. These factors can be summarized
as follows:
i. The nature of the alleged offence, the nature of the
accusation and the severity of the punishment in the
case of a conviction;
ii. Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of the
accused tampering with the witness or being a threat to
the complainant or the witnesses;
iii. The possibility of securing the presence of the accused
at the trial or the likelihood of the accused fleeing from
justice;
iv. The antecedents of and circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused;
v. Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence are
made out, on the basis of the allegations as they stand,
in the FIR; and
vi. The significant interest of the public or the State and
other similar considerations.
9) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in
particular the pre-trial detention of the applicant who is 37 years
old which comes to about one and half years, keeping in view
the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami case and Sanjay Chandra case (supra), there is no
substantial progress in the trial due to COVID-19 Pandemic
disposal of trial is likely to take some time, charge sheet has
already been filed, the fact that the applicant has no criminal
antecedents and there is no apprehension of the applicant
tampering with the evidence or absconding as admitted by both
the counsel, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the
event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 100,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, he shall be released on
bail on the following conditions:-
i. he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact
to the Court,
ii. he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to
fair and expeditious trial,
iii. he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every
date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial,
iv. he shall strictly follow the COVID-19 protocol issued by the
Central Govt./State Govt./Local Authority,
v. he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature
in future.
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned
Police Station forthwith who shall inform the trial Court in the
event of applicant involving himself in similar offence in future.
-Sd/-
(Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge
Chandrakant
