Chattisgarh High Court

Sushmita Ramteke vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 September, 2021

                                     1


                                                                         NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        Criminal Appeal No. 752 of 2021
1. Suryakant Tiwari, aged 23 years, Gendlal Tiwari,
2. Preetam Sahu, Aged 26 years, S/o Shri Deenbandhu Sahu,
    Both R/o Village Baroda, Post Mandhar, P.S. - Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur
    (C.G.) (details not mentioned completely in the order sheet)
                                                                 ---- Appellants
                                  Versus
   State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer (SHO), P.S.
    Dogargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
                                                        ---- State/Respondent

For Appellants               :      Shri Devershi Thakur, Advocate

For Respondent /State        :      Shri Adil Minhaz, Government Advocate


                        Criminal Appeal No. 829 of 2021

 Kaushal @ Daimond Sahu, S/o Punau Ram Sahu, aged about 29 years, R/o Village- Nayapara Tekari, Mandhar, Dharsiwa, Police Station - Dharsiwa, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

---- Appellant Versus  State of Chhattisgarh, through the Stations House Officer, Police Station-

Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

---- State/Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate

For Respondent /State : Shri Adil Minhaz, Government Advocate

And Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2021  Sushmita Ramteke W/o late Avinash Ramteke, aged about 21 years, R/o Danteshwari Para, Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

---- Appellant Versus  State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

---- State/Respondent

For Appellant : Shri S.S. Baghel, Advocate

For Respondent /State : Shri Adil Minhaz, Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya, J Judgment on Board

10.09.2021

1. Cr.A. No. 752/2021 by accused/appellants Suryakant Tiwari and Preetam

Sahu under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed against the order dated

18.06.2021 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Rajnandgaon, District

Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Case No. 19/2021, rejecting their regular bail

under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. Cr.A. No. 829/2021 by accused/appellant Kaushal @ Daimond Sahu under

Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed against the order dated 05.07.2021 passed

by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

in Special Case No. 19/2021, rejecting his regular bail under Section 439

Cr.P.C.

3. Cr.A. No. 848/2021 by accused/appellant Sushmita Ramteke under Section

14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed against the order dated 03.08.2021 passed

by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

in Special Criminal Case No. 19/2021, rejecting her regular bail under

Section 439 Cr.P.C.

4. As above all the appeals preferred by the respective appellants arise out of

the same Crime Number i.e. 166/2021 registered in Police Station

Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) for the offence punishable under

Sections 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 against all the appellants, they are being disposed of by this common

judgment.

5. As per prosecution case, on 23.03.2021 complainant Vinayak Meshram

lodged Dehatinalishi that his friend Avinash Ramteke (deceased) is missing

since yesterday and his mobile is switched off. After some time, he received

telephonic call from one Ashish Dongre who informed him that dead body of

Avinash Ramteke and his vehicle are lying near Kurubhat Pipariya Road. On

first information report being lodged by the complainant, the matter was

investigated. During investigation, it revealed that co-accused Kaushal @

Daimond Sahu had illicit relation with wife of the deceased Sushmita

Ramteke. In order to commit murder of the deceased, on 23.3.2021

applicant Daimond Sahu alongwith applicants Suryakant Tiwari and Preetam

Sahu came to Dongargarh by Swift Car bearing registration No. CG-04 MT

6441 and after leaving applicants Suryakant Tiwari and Preetam Sahu at the

temple there, applicant Daimond Sahu called the deceased and thereafter

both of them went Kurubhat where applicant Daimond Sahu assaulted the

deceased with broken bottle of beer on his neck and with a knife on his

abdomen about 18-20 times and thereafter threw him in the culvert.

6. Father of deceased namely Nirmal Das Ramteke is connected through

video conferencing from District Legal Services Committee, Rajnandgaon

(C.G.) and he has objection to grant of bail to the appellants by this Court.

7. Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-

Kaushal @ Daimond Sahu i.e. Cr.A. No. 829/2021, seeks to withdraw this

appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal as and when occasion arises.

8. Accordingly, the appeal (Cr.A. No. 829/2021) is dismissed as withdrawn with

the liberty as stated above.

9. Now this Court considers the appeals on behalf of appellants- Suryakant

Tiwari & Preetam Sahu i.e. Cr.A. No. 752/2021 and appellant- Sushmita

Ramteke i.e. Cr.A. No. 848/2021.

10. Shri Devershi Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants

Suryakant Tiwari and Preetam Sahu i.e. Cr.A. No. 752/2021, submits that

the appellants are innocent persons, have been falsely implicated in this

case and only on the basis of memorandum of accused- Kaushal @

Daimond Sahu, the appellants have been made accused in the crime in

question. Only allegation against the appellants is that on the date of

incident, they were dropped at temple by accused Kaushal @ Daimond

Sahu in a Swift Car and there have been no seizure from the appellants. He

submit that appellants are in jail since 26.03.2021, charge-sheet has already

been filed and due to Covid-19 pandemic, conclusion of the trial is likely to

take some time, therefore, the appellants be released on bail.

11. Shri S.S. Baghel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant

Sushmita Ramteke i.e. Cr.A. No. 848/2021, submits that the appellant is wife

of the deceased, she is an innocent, has been falsely implicated in this case

and she did not have illicit relations with accused Kaushal @ Daimond Sahu.

He submits that there is no seizure of any articles from the appellant as well

as there are no eyewitnesses to support the prosecution case. He also

submit that appellant is in jail since 26.03.2021, charge-sheet has already

been filed and due to Covid-19 pandemic, conclusion of the trial is likely to

take some time, therefore, the appellant be released on bail.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the submission

made by the respective appellants' counsel submits that the trial Court has

rightly rejected the bail applications of appellants- Suryakant Tiwari, Preetam

Sahu and Sushmita Ramteke and there is no illegality or infirmity in the

same warranting interference by this Court.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

14. So far as appellants- Suryakant Tiwari and Preetam Sahu are concerned,

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that both had

only gone alongwith accused Kaushal @ Daimond Sahu from Raipur to

Dongargarh, but they were not present at the time of incident when accused

Kaushal @ Daimond allegedly committed murder of deceased by assaulting

him with sharp and cutting weapon, nor seizure of any incriminating material

was made from both the appellants, as per memorandum statements of

Kaushal @ Daimond Sahu, both the appellants have no enmity with the

deceased or any specific motive for committing murder of the deceased, that

considering the detention period of appellants who are 23 & 26 years old,

charge-sheet has already been filed, conclusion of the trial is likely to take

some time and there is no apprehension of the appellants tampering with the

evidence or absconding, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case for grant of bail to

the appellants. Accordingly, the Cr.A. No. 752/2021 is allowed.

15.It is directed that in the event of each of the appellants (SuryaKant Tiwari &

Preetam Sahu) executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with

two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial

Court, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

i. they 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. they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

iii. they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. iv. they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

v. they shall strictly follow the Covid-19 protocol issued by the

16. Central Govt./State Govt./Local Authority.

17.Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Police Station

forthwith who shall inform the trial Court in the event of appellants involving

themselves in similar nature of offence.

18. So far as appellant- Sushmita Ramteke is concerned, she was wife of

deceased, the allegation made against her by father-in-law Nirmal Das

Ramteke is that she was having relations with main accused Kaushal @

Daimond Sahu; as per 161 CrPC statement of Nirmal Das Ramteke, he

suspected the appellant that she alongwith accused Kaushal @ Daimond

Sahu committed murder of the deceased; as per statement of complainant

Vinayak Meshram, he heard that murder of deceased was committed by his