High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 07 CHH CK 0025

Manoj Sharma & Anr. vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 11 July 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
RAJENDRA CHANDRA SINGH SAMANT, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
MCRC No. 4478 of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 444 words
1.

The applicants have preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of CrPC, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime

No.89/2017, registered at Police Station D. D. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Sections 364 (A), 120-B, 342, 323 read with

Section 34 and 420 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

2.

It is submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The applicants are in jail since 18.03.2017. Hence, no case is made out

against the applicants.

3.

It is submitted that the victim has been examined by the trial Court and according to the statement given by him, the allegation against the applicant

No.1 in the prosecution case is falsified and the applicant No.2 had no role to play, as she is the wife of the applicant No.1 and was only present on

the spot, hence both the applicants be released on bail.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that according to the statement of the victim under Section 161 of CrPC, the

applicants have played important role in commission of offence, hence the applicants may not be released on bail.

5.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6.

As per the prosecution case, the victim/complainant Sushil Gupta was abducted for ransom by the co-accused persons and he was kept in

confinement. The allegation against the applicant No.1 is that he was guarding the victim by using a countrymade pistol and when the Police

Personnels of Crime Branch made their entry, he tried to fire on them and also on the complainant. The allegation against the applicant No.2 is that

she was present on the spot where the complainant was kept in confinement.

7.

After due scrutiny of the materials present in the case diary and also taking into consideration the fact that the applicant No.2 was only present on

the spot, I am of this view that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant No.2, whereas no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant No.1

looking to his involvement and the activity in the case. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No.1 is rejected. Consequently, the bail

application of the applicant No.2 is allowed and the applicant No.2 is directed to be released on bail on her executing a personal bond for a sum of

Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. She is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every

date given by the said Court.