Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3787 Chatt
Judgement Date : 15 June, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1369 of 2022
Rupesh Chauhan S/o Vinay Chauhan Aged About 19 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar,
Adarsh Para, Near Madhuram Jwellers, Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station -Supela, District Durg
Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Roshan Dubey, PL.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
15/06/2022
1. This is First bail application of applicant filed under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail, who is in jail since 15.12.2020 in
connection with Crime No.891/2020, registered at PS -Supela, District Durg,
(C.G.), for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 34 of the
IPC.
2. Prosecution case is that on 15.12.2020 complainant Abdul Rahim Ahmad has
lodged the FIR mentioning therein that present applicant and Dharmendra have
caused the murder of deceased by using Knife, hands and fist in the night at
about 12:05 on that day. So the offence has been registered and applicant was
arrested on 15.12.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that material witnesses have been
examined before the trial Court and they have not supported case of
prosecution which indicates that applicant has been falsely implicated in this
case. In support of his case, he places his reliance in case of Prasad Shrikant
Purohit vs. State of Maharastra 1, and submits that while granting bail to
applicant nature of supporting evidence has to be considered. In this case, the
material witnesses have been turned hostile. In case law of Jayendra
Saraswati Swamigal vs. State Tamila Nadu 2 & Prahlad Singh Bhati vs.
1 2018 (11) SCC 458.
2 2005 (2) SCC 13.
NCT of Delhi & Ors3, it has been laid down that character of evidence has to
be seen. And about the credibility of the Police witnesses referred the case law
of Pramod Kumar vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) 4 and Girja Prasad vs
State of M.P5. With regard to admissibility of Section 161 statement, he
referred case law of Parvat Singh vs. State of M.P6 and submits that as lodger
of FIR himself has turned hostile, so the FIR is not substantial piece of
evidence, prosecution fails to discharge his burden. Considering above
aspects, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for State strongly opposes the bail application and
submits that at the time of considering bail application, marshaling of evidence
is not required, the judgment relied upon by counsel for the applicant may be
appreciated at the time of passing final judgment. He also referred and drawn
attention of this Court that lodger of FIR Abdul Rahim Ahmad (PW-7) in para 4
of his statement has clearly deposed that present applicant assaulted the
deceased and he has seen the incident. Hence, the applicant does not deserve
the bail.
5. Heard counsel for the parties.
6. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts and
circumstances of the case, nature of allegations which are serious in nature,
gravity of offence, particularly considering the FIR which has been lodged
promptly, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am not inclined
to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.
7. Accordingly, bail application of applicant is dismissed. However, trial Court is
directed to expedite the trial.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge J/-
3 2001 (4) SCC 280.
4 2013 (6) SCC 588.
5 2007 (7) SCC 625.
6 2020 (4) SCC 33.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!