Chattisgarh High Court
Vimal Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9547 of 2022
Vimal Kumar S/o Ghanshyam Vishwakarma, Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village Dumardih, Police Station Utai, Tahsi And, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Durg, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
---- Non-Applicant
For the Applicant : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Mr. Aman Upadhyay,
Advocates.
For Non-Applicant : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. A. G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
16.02.2023
1.
The applicant has preferred the first bail application under Section 439 of
CrPC for grant of regular bail as he is in jail since 19.08.2022 in
connection with Crime No.317/2022 registered at Police Station- Nevai
District- Durg (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution in brief, is that, a merg intimation was reported
to the Police on 03.06.2022 by Krishna Markande with regard to the
death of deceased Kumari Priyanka Bandhe. During investigation, it was
found that the deceased was having love affair with the applicant and on
the date of incident i.e. on 02.06.2022 both have disputed over the
marriage, on which the applicant denied to marry and the deceased
committed suicide by jumping from over bridge.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not
committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case. He
further submits that no offence under Section 306 is made out and the
ingredients of Section 107 of IPC is lacking in this case. The applicant is
in jail since 19.08.2022, charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take
some time, therefore, he may be released on bail. In support of his
submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. reported in
1995 Supp SCC (3) 438 and also an order of this Court passed in MCRC
No.8593 of 2022 vide order dated 22.11.2022 and the scenario of
present case is identical, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the
present applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application and submits that looking to the allegations and seriousness of
the offence, his application may be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival
submissions.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the
detention period, trial may take some time and in view of judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Swamy Prahaladdas (Supra), without
commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this
bail application.
7. Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is allowed and it is
directed that applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. He shall appear
before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said trial
Court, till disposal of the trial.
8. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove 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
hereinabove. It is made clear that he shall not influence any of the
witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case in any manner
whatsoever, and that if anything like this comes to the notice of the Court
below, it may cancel the bail granted to him.
9. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
parul
