Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rupesh Chauhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3787 Chatt

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3787 Chatt
Judgement Date : 15 June, 2022

Chattisgarh High Court
Rupesh Chauhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 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.

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter