Chattisgarh High Court
Ku. Megha Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 January, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 16.12.2022
Order Delivered on 18/1/2022
MCRC No. 5774 of 2021
• Nitin Limbu Alias Munku Nepali S/o Nirmal Kumar Limbu Aged
About 40 Years R/o Gauri Nagar, Thana Kotwali, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Thana
Lalbagh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Non-applicant
MCRC No. 6086 of 2021
• Ku. Megha Tiwari D/o Alok Tiwari Aged About 24 Years R/o
Suncity (Wrongly Written As Sana City), Shrishti Colony,
Police Station Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Lalbagh,
Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Non-applicant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.Cr.C. No.5774/2021
For Applicant : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Objector : Mr. Ranbir Singh, Mr. Shashank Thakur &
Mr. Priyankesh Chandrakar, Advocates.
M.Cr.C. No.6086/2021
For Applicant : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate with Mr.
Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Objector : Mr. Ranbir Singh, Mr. Shashank Thakur &
Mr. Priyankesh Chandrakar, Advocates.
CAV ORDER
Per Parth Prateem Sahu J,
1. As above two bail applications arise out of same crime number,
they were being heard together and are decided by this common
order.
2. Applicants have filed above applications under Section 439 of
CrPC for grant of regular bail to them as they are in custody
since 1.4.2021 & 2.4.2021 in connection with Crime No.327/2018
registered at Police Station Lalbagh, Rajnandgaon for
commission of offences under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 193 of
IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 10.9.2018 at about 9:30
p.m. merg was reported in concerned police station by Constable
of Police Station Lalbagh, District Rajnandgaon that during
patrolling duty when he reached near Rewadih Intersection on
Nagpur-Rajnandgaon Road at about 8:30 p.m., he saw that one
person came out from his car standing on road side bearing
registration number CG04-KT-7000 in bleeding condition and fell
down on road. Police Constable took injured to District Hospital
in government vehicle where doctor declared him brought dead.
Based on merg intimation, FIR is registered on same day at
about 9:40 p.m. against unknown persons. During course of
investigation, applicants were arrested on 1.4.2021 & 2.4.2021
respectively and their memorandum statements were recorded.
4. Mr. T.K. Tiwari & Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel for
respective applicants would submit that applicants have not
committed any crime as alleged against them. Alleged murder of
Shubham Namdev was committed on 10.9.2018, police
surprisingly arrested applicants on 1.4.2021 & 2.4.2021
respectively without there being any material connecting them in
commission of aforementioned crime. Police recorded
memorandum statement of applicants on respective date of their
arrest. Applicants were arrested on the basis of report of Narco
Analysis Test of applicants stated to have been conducted on
5.12.2019. Narco Analysis Test report is not an admissible piece
of evidence, hence on that basis only it cannot be said that there
is material connecting applicants with commission of
aforementioned crime. In support of contention that Narco
Analysis Test report is not an admissible piece of evidence, they
place reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Selvi vs. State of Karnataka Reported in (2010) 7 SCC 263.
They further submit that after receipt of report Narco
Analysis test, police recorded statement of some witnesses in
the month of January, 2021. These witnesses are planted
witnesses and not eyewitness of incident because none of them
came forward to make any statement during these three years. It
is further submitted that deceased was man of lose character, he
was having relationship with several girls, he and his father were
also arrested on allegation against them of commission of
offence under Section 376 of IPC. Hence, possibility that
deceased might be having several enemies cannot be ruled out.
Except Narco Test report, there is no other material to connect
applicant with crime in question, hence, in view of decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Selvi (supra), applicants may
be enlarged on regular bail.
5. Per contra, Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, learned Deputy Government
Advocate for the State opposes submissions of learned counsel
for respective applicants and submits that during course of
investigation, police collected messages and details of mobile
phones with whom deceased had conversation on the date of
incident. Immediately after incident, statements of Virendra
Kumar Namdev, relative of deceased, Ramendra Namdev, father
of deceased, and others were recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
Police based on material collected during course of investigation,
interrogated applicants. Police gave notice to applicants and one
another co-accused for undergoing Narco Analysis Test and after
obtaining their consent, they were put to Narco Analysis Test.
From the material collected during investigation, before putting
them to Narco test, involvement of applicants in commission of
aforementioned crime is prima facie appearing. He submits
police recorded statements of Nikhil Sonwani, Sidar Das
Vaishnav, Dileshwar Sahu, Bharti Belchandan, Madhur Kumar
Meshram under Section 161 CrPC. Nikhil Sonwani and Madhur
Kumar Meshram have stated in their statement that they saw
deceased and applicants sitting in a car at the place of incident.
Hence, there is prima facie material against applicants of their
involvement in aforementioned crime.
6. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned counsel for Complainant/
Objector would submit that police during course of investigation
collected material and based upon material available in charge
sheet, applicants were arrested. Material available in charge
sheet prima facie shows involvement of applicants in commission
of aforementioned crime. He also submits that report of Narco
Analysis Test can be relied upon against applicants. Relying
upon some paragraphs of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Selvi (supra), he submits that applicants are not entitled to be
enlarged on regular bail.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused case
diary placed before this Court.
8. Merg in this case was lodged by one police personnel who
during his patrolling duty on 10.9.2018 at about 8:30 p.m. saw
deceased coming out of car in bleeding condition and falling on
road. Many things were seized by police from that car. Police
also collected details of mobile phone of deceased based upon
which applicant Nitin Limbu was interrogated; his statement
under Section 161 CrPC was recorded. On 18.9.2018
statements of father of deceased, Virendra Kumar Namdev and
Bharti Belchandan were recorded in which name of applicant
Nitin Limbu, Megha Tiwari and one Golu Marwadi appeared.
Thereafter statements of Nikhil Sonwani and Madhukar Kumar
Meshram were also recorded.
9. Considering material collected by police during investigation,
which is part of charge sheet, and statements of witnesses
recorded under Section 161 CrPC, particularly statements of
Virendra Kumar Namdev, Ramendra Namdeo, Ashok Deshmukh,
Nikhil Sonwani and Madhukar Kumar Meshram, I do not find
present to be a fit case where applicants can be enlarged on
regular bail.
10. Accordingly, bail applications are rejected.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
