Haridwar Singh @ Hari Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 547 Chatt

                                       Order Reserved on 03.12.2022
                                     Order Pronounced on 27.01.2023
                                                                 NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           MCRC No. 8772 of 2022
      Haridwar Singh @ Hari Singh S/o Rameshvar Aged About 45
       Years R/o Taranagar Sikariya, Thana Bihta, District Patna, Bihar,
       Currently Reside C/o House Of Bhola, Thather Basti,
       Godaripara, Chrirmiri, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
                                                           ---- Applicant
                                 Versus
      State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of
       Police Station Podi, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
                                                      ---- Respondent

For the Applicant/s :- Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Dy. AG _______________________________________________________________

CAV Order

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

The applicant has preferred this First bail application under

Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is in custody

in connection with crime No. 155 of 2021 registered in Police Station

Podi, District Koriya, CG for ofence punishable under Sections 302

and 201 of IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 30.09.2021

Sameer Ahmad @ Baba was going on his motorcycle, on the way

Virendra Singh and Haridwar Singh @ Hari Singh took lift from him

and they went to one restaurant for breakfast. When they went near

Sarbhoka Dam, Virendra Singh & Haridwar Singh stayed there and

Sameer Singh @ Baba went to Mutton shop. Next morning at about

7:30 am when Pradeep Singh and Satyanaryan were going to nearby

Sarbhoka Dam, they saw dead body of deceased Virendra Singh. The present applicant has been implicated in this case on the basis

of last seen together.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant

has not committed any ofence and has been falsely implicated in

the case. She further submits that the dead body of the deceased

was found in Sarbhoka Dam on 01.10.2021 which was seen by one

witness. Thereafter the postmortem was conducted on the same day

and it is revealed in the postmortem that he died of drowning. She

further submits that according to the postmortem report, the period

of death is between 36 to 72 hours. She submits that the case of the

prosecution is basically rested on account of last seen theory which

has been brought by witness Sameer Ahmed @ Baba who happens

to be an unnatural witness because he stated that he saw the

deceased with the present applicant alive till 30.09.2021 and the

time gap between the time of death and the last seen together is

too much and it is possible that somebody else might have

committed the crime. She further submits that the evidence of last

seen is weak piece of evidence and until and unless more admissible

piece of evidence is brought on record, conviction cannot be

sustained on the basis of only last seen theory. S he placed reliance

on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kanhaiya Lal

Vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715 and

Navaneethakrishnan Vs. State by Inspector of Police (2018) 16

SCC 161, and the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad

Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and connected matter

(Criminal Appeal No. 1118 of 2014). She lastly submits that the

applicant is in jail since 03.10.2021; charge-sheet has already been

filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore,

applicant may be released on bail.

4. State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that

the dead body was found on 01.10.2021 and in the inquest report it

was found that his hand was tight but it is not mentioned that the

hand was tight in the back side. He further submits that according to

the postmortem report, the death occurred between 36 to 72 hours

and according to the statement of witness Sameer Ahmed @ Baba

he has seen both the applicant and the deceased together on

30.09.2021 at about 9 am. He further submits that there are certain

injury was found in the hand and wrist of the deceased which goes

to show that he cannot of his own tight himself and therefore the

circumstances are prevailing against the present applicant as there

are some quarrel on account of some amount for smoking Ganja and

last seen theory is also there, so there are sufcient circumstantial

evidence against the present applicant therefore, the application

may be rejected.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions and also perused the case diary.

6. Considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The

prosecution case basically rested upon the theory of last seen together.

To support the theory the prosecution has recorded the statement of

Bhola Kumar Tamrakar and Sameer Singh @ Baba. Apart from this, the

prosecution has also recovered Rs. 260/- from the possession of the

present applicant at the instance of present applicant. It is true that

evidence of last seen together is not a very strong peace of evidence

and some other circumstances have to be seen, apart from the last

seen theory to indicate commission of crime and the applicant is guilty

of the said crime. The case in hand, apart from the statement of these

two witnesses projecting the last seen theory, recovery of Rs. 260/-

from the possession of the applicant, on the basis of his memorandum

statement is there. The Doctor has conducted postmortem and opined that the death has occurred between 36 to 72 hours prior. The

postmortem was conducted on 01.10.2021 between 4 to 4:30 pm.

According to the postmortem report the death of the deceased might

have caused at about 4 - 4:30 Am on 30.09.2021 or prior to it,

statement of witness Sameer Singh @ Baba stated that he has seen

the deceased and the applicant alive till 9 am on 30.09.2021. The

citation relied upon by the counsel for the applicant in the case of

Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715 and

Navaneethakrishnan Vs. State by Inspector of Police (2018) 16

SCC 161, whereby the Supreme Court acquitted the accused who was

convicted on the basis of last seen theory.

7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of

the case, the evidence collected by the prosecution, applicant is in jail

since 03.10.2021, and considering the nature of allegations; trial may

take some time for conclusion; without commenting on the merits of

the case, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is allowed

and it is directed that on 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.

9. The applicant shall not leave the territory of State of

Chhattisgarh without prior permission of trial Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge PAWAN