Chattisgarh High Court
Naeem Baksh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 December, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7527 of 2021
Naeem Baksh S/o Hussain Baksh Aged About 28 Years R/o
Kelabadi, District- Durg (C.G.), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The District- Magistrate,
Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), District : Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Shri Sudhir Sahu, Panel Lawyer
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
16/12/2021
1. Applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection
with Crime No.239/2021 registered at Police Station
-Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (CG) for the offence
punishable under Sections 457, 380, 34 of IPC.
2. Case of prosecution is that on 8.7.2021 in the night, some
persons have committed theft in the house of complainant-
Nirupa Sahu and stolen gold and silver ornaments. Based on
the report lodged by complainant, aforementioned crime was
registered against unknown person. During course of
investigation, applicant along with Supreet, Mohit and Sagar
were arrested on 13.7.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the case only on the
basis of suspicion as earlier he has been implicated in similar
nature of crimes in which applicant got acquitted. Some
ornaments seized from applicants are the ornaments of his own
and his family members. After seizure of ornaments though
ornaments have been placed for identification but no other
similar ornaments have been mixed with the seized ornaments.
Hence, there was no proper procedure adopted by the police for
identification of theft articles. Complainant has not produced
payment receipt of the articles, hence, it cannot be said that
articles stated to have been identified by complainant is of her
own. Applicant is in jail since 13.7.2021, offence is triable by
Magistrate which may take some time, hence, applicant may be
enlarged on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of
learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that
applicant is a habitual offender. Six other criminal cases of
similar nature of the year 2019 were also registered against him
as mentioned in case diary. He also points out that the theft
articles have been seized from possession of applicant and
articles seized were also identified by complainant to be her
own. However, upon asking to learned counsel for the State
whether any other similar articles were mixed along with the
theft articles at the time of identification, after going through the
proceedings, learned counsel for the State submits that there is
no mention of mixing of any other articles of similar nature along
with the alleged identified articles. He submits that apart from
this, the applicant is arrested in two other crimes registered
against him of the year 2021 in which also applicant has been
shown to be arrested on 13.7.2021. Hence, he is not entitled for
grant of bail.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for applicant would submit that
applicant has been arrested only in one crime and thereafter he
has been implicated in other two pending crimes registered at
the same police station.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, nature of allegations, the ground raised by learned
counsel for applicant with respect to identification of alleged theft
articles, further that applicant has placed on record as Annexure
D-1, the certified copies of judgments passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Durg in Crime No.1074/2019, Crime No.
1070/2019, Crime No. 383/2019, Crime No. 610/2019, Crime
No. 936/2019 and Crime No 747/2019, wherein the applicant
has been acquitted. The applicant is in jail since 13.7.2021,
offence to be triable by Magistrate, without commenting anything
on merits, I am inclined to allow the bail application.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the
applicant shall be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a
bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like
sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:-
a) Applicant shall appear before the trial Court regularly on
each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.
b) Applicant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the
prosecution witnesses.
c) If the applicant is found involved in similar offence in the
future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of
Bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-/-/---/-/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
