Muchaki Bhima vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1254 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                            NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                   Criminal Appeal No.286 of 2022

  1. Muchaki Bhima S/o. Muchaki Sona, aged about 20 years,
     R/o. Village Junaguda, P.S. Jagargunda, District Sukma
     (CG)
  2. Madami Bhime S/o. Madami Hidma, aged about 23 years,
     R/o. Village Tekul Gudiyam P.S. Jagargunda, District
     Sukma (CG)
  3. Midayam Lakhma S/o. Midyam Hadma, aged about 38 years,
     R/o. Village Tekulgudiyam P.S. Jagdargunda, District
     Sukma (CG)
                                             ­­­­ Appellants
                                                  (In Jail)
                           Versus

    State     of    Chhattisgarh           Through   the   Police     Station
    Basaguda, District Bijapur (CG)
                                                              ­­­­ Respondent

For Appellants:                   Mr.P.K.Tulsyan, Advocate
For Respondent/State:             Mr.Sunil Otwani, Addl.A.G.


            Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and
                 Hon'ble Smt.Justice Rajani Dubey

                            Judgment on Board
                               (10.3.2022)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section

21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008

against the order dated 21.2.2022 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (Naxal),

Dakshin Bastar Dantewada, by which their application

under Section 439 of the CrPC has been rejected.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on

18.11.2020 the appellants were setting I.I.D. bomb in

motion to harm the life of security forces and their

property, etc. and while noticing the presence of

police party, they absconded from the spot and

immediately thereafter explosives materials and cash of

Rs.22,400/­ were seized from the spot and thereby

committed the offence under Section 148 of the IPC and

Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

3. Mr.P.K.Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellants,

would submit that the appellants have not committed any

offence and they have falsely been implicated in crime

in question. Only on the basis of dehali nalishi, the

appellants have been arrested. There is no seizure and

no memorandum statements of the present appellants. He

would further submit that number of witnesses have been

examined and they have turned hostile, they are in jail

since 19.11.2020 and no useful purpose would be served

by detaining them in jail.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Sunil Otwani, learned Additional

Advocate General for the respondent/State, would submit

that the appellants have been noticed setting I.I.D.

bomb in motion and there is sufficient evidence

available on record to connect the present appellants

for offence in question.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the

parties, considered their rival submissions made

hereinabove and also gone through the documents

appended with appeal.

6. Taking into consideration the nature & gravity of

offence, facts & circumstances of the case and evidence

available in case diary against the present appellants,

we do not find it a fit case to set­aside the impugned

order. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

            Sd/­                               Sd/­

      (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                  (Rajani Dubey)
           Judge                                Judge
B/­