Rupa Minj vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7078 Chatt

                                                                          NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                MCRC No. 9460 of 2022

            Rupa Minj S/o Ramprasad Minj Aged About 30 Years R/o Village -
            Rajaulipara, Police Outpost - Basdei, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, District
            Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
                                                              ---- Applicant

                                       Versus

            State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Arakshi Kendra, Police Outpost
            Basdei, P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ---- Respondent

MCRC No. 9404 of 2022

1. Savina Minj W/o Rambharat Minj Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Rajaulipara, Police Outpost - Basdei, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

2. Hariprasad Minj S/o Late Mohan Minj Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Rajaulipara, Police Outpost - Basdei, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

---- Applicants Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Outpost Incharge, Police Outpost - Basdei, P.S - Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

----Non-applicant

For Applicants Shri Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate.

For State           Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A.

                 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

                              Order on Board

24/11/2022

1. Since both applications are arising out of the same crime number, therefore, they are being disposed of by common order.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks to withdraw the bail application of Hariprasad Minj.

3. Permission as prayed for is granted.

4. The bail application of applicant Hariprasad Minj is dismissed as withdrawn.

5. The applicants have preferred first bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.297/2022 registered at Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 506, 323, 341, 325, 307, 302 of IPC.

6. The case of prosecution in brief, the complainant Vijendra Minj lodged a report on account of land dispute on 02.07.2022. It is alleged that when he was returning to his home along with his brothers Manhai Minj, Omprakash Minj and Rajendra Minj at about 07:00 P.M. the present applicants and other co-accused person assaulted the complainant with the help of club and threatened them. On the basis of said report, offence was registered. The applicants were arrested on 03.07.2022 and 28.07.2022.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any crime and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicants have been arrested in connection with offence under Section 149 of IPC, in fact they have not committed any crime, and there is no recovery made from the applicants of the article which was used to assault the victim persons. He further submits that the applicants are lady. He had further relied to the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1989 1 SCC 437 (Lalji v. State of U.P.), 2010 5 Supreme Court Cases 81 (Daya Kishan v. State of Harayana) and the common judgment passed by the division bench of this Court in the case of (Sohan Ram, Nohar Sai Lohara vs. State of Chhattisgarh) passed in CRA No. 123 of 2020 on 01.07.2022. He further submits that Prima Facie offence under Section 149 is not made out against the present applicants, charge-sheet has been filed, the applicants are in jail since 03.07.2022 and 28.07.2022, trial is likely to take some time and one co- accused has granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.8439/2022 on 21/11/2022, therefore, the applicants may be released on bail.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the bail applications. She further submits that no recovery of any arms from the present applicants and further the statement of witnesses clearly indicates involvement of the present applicants.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the nature of allegations and evidence collected so far by the prosecution, charge-sheet has been filed and trial is likely to take time and one of the co- accused has granted bail, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed.

11. It is directed that in the event of the applicants executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail, on following conditions :-

a) They shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

b) They shall not make any attempt to tamper or influence with the prosecution witnesses.

It is also made clear that the complainant or State is at liberty to move an application regarding cancellation of bail of the applicants in the event of applicants involving themselves in similar offence in future .

Sd/-

Sachin Singh Rajput Judge Kamde