Chattisgarh High Court
Motram Sande vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 November, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8665 of 2022
Smt. Chanda Bai W/o Shri Mohit Ram Aged About 67 Years R/o Village
Khudiyadih, Post Bodsara, Police Station Bilha, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Of Police Station Bilha,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Non-applicant
MCRC No. 8963 of 2022
1.
Motram Sande S/o Shri Mohan Sande Aged About 66 Years R/o
Village Khudiyadih, Post Bodsara, Police Station Bilha, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Gendram Sande S/o Shri Motram Sande Aged About 26 Years R/o
Village Khudiyadih, Post Bodsara, Police Station Bilha, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3. Rajesh Shastri S/o Shri Shail Kumar Shastri Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village Khudiyadih, Post Bodsara, Police Station Bilha, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Of Police Station Bilha,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---Non-applicant
_____________________________________________________________________
For Applicants : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate
with Mr. Vikas Bajpai,Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, P.L.
For Objector : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate
____________________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
25/11/2022
Since both the cases arises out of same crime number, they are
being heard together and disposed of by this common order.
1. The applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No.
198/2022 registered at Police Station - Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G) for
alleged commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 506 and
307 of the IPC.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that, the complainant has lodged a
report to the concerned police Station, Bilha alleging that the applicant along
with her family members committed marpit with the complainant and his family
members by using the deadly weapons. The complainant and his family
members sustained multiple injuries over the vital part of their body, thereby,
committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have
not committed any offence, they are falsely implicated in the case. He further
submits that on account of some monetary dispute between the family
members of the present applicants and the complainant quarrel took place
between them resulted into a free fight, certain injuries were received by one
Rajendra and also by Ram Naresh. FIR has been lodged by both the parties
against each other. He submits that the FIR lodged by the complainant does
not specify as to how initiation of the offence took place. He further submits
that the applicant Smt. Chanda Bai is a lady and she has not committed any
overtact but being a family member, the entire family member have been
roped in crime. The aggressor party was complainant and his family members
were charged for bailable offences under the influence, therefore, they have
been released on bail. The applicants herein belonged to Scheduled Cast
Community, despite of that no offence is under the scheduled case &
scheduled tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 was charged against the
aggressor party/complainant. He submits that though there is a fractured on
vital part of the complainant and has been discharged from the hospital and
as such the ingredient ofoffence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. He
further submits that the name of applicant (Chandabai) has not been
mentioned in the FIR. He further relied upon the judgment of 2006(1) CGLJ 419
in the case of Tirthram & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and submit that
when both he parties involved in free fight then individual act is to be seen. He
further submit that applicant Motilal Sande aged about 66 years and the other
applicants have no previous criminal antecedent or record, therefore the bail
application may be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes bail application,
and submits that the injury sustained by injured Ramnaresh is serious in
nature and he was hospitalized almost for more than 20 days and according
to the investigation the applicant Chandabai attacked with brick on the head,
however, she fairly submits that no such injury is found on the head. She
further submit that investigation is not complete, looking to the overtact,
nature of the allegation, application may be rejected.
5. learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail application and
submits that the applicants were the aggressor party and when they attacked
on the complainant, they defended themselves therefore it can not be said
that the complainant party is aggressor party. He submits if the bail is granted
then there is possibility that applicants may give threat to the complainant,
therefore, the application may be reject.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and there was
a free fight amongs the two family members, FIR & counter FIR has been
lodged by them. The FIR was lodged by the present applicants in Crime No.
197/2022 at about 10:15 pm and FIR 198/2022 was lodged at about 10:30 pm
by the complainant. It is also not a dispute that both the parties have suffered
injuries, evidence collected by prosecution and both the FIR, after hearing
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, also relying on a judgment
Tirathram & other vs. State of CG (Supra), looking to the nature of
allegations and detention period of the applicants, they are in jail since
17.09.2022, trial may take some time, without commenting anything on merits
at this stage, I am inclined to allow this bail application.
8. Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is allowed and it
is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one solvent surety for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court on the condition that -
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 with the prosecution
witnesses.
c) They Shall restrained from meeting any of the prosecution
witnesses till conclusion of trial.
9. It is made clear that the observations made herein above is only for
the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial Court will decide the
case on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made
herein above. 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 violates the above conditions.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
( Sachin Singh Rajput )
Judge
vaishali
