Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2053 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 239 of 2025 Bathwa Dewar S/o Harbansh Dewar Aged About 21 Years R/o Kukurbeda, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Ganj, District- Raipur (C.G.) … Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.01.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 94/2024 registered at Police Station- Ganj, District- Raipur, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17/02/2024, the complainant, Satish Kumar Dubey, along with his wife, Kamini RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.14 15:55:06 +0530 2 Dubey, went to Raipur to attend the wedding ceremony of the son of his friend, Chandra Shekhar Tiwari, in Bilaspur. After the completion of the program, on the evening of 18/02/2024, they returned to Raipur from Bilaspur via the Shivnath Express train. Upon alighting from the train, they hired an auto-rickshaw to travel to their hotel. At around 11:45 PM, when they reached the main road in front of Simran Hotel, three accused persons, namely, — Golu Dewar, Bathwa Dewar, and Rahul Dewar—approached from behind on a motorcycle. At that time, the complainant’s wife was holding a purse containing gold jewelry, including a Rani Haar necklace, gold earrings, a locket, four gold rings, two silver rings, a pair of silver anklets, cash amounting to Rs. 9,000-10,000, and a mobile phone, all valued at approximately Rs. 4 lakhs. The accused persons snatched the purse and fled towards Fafadih Chowk. During the incident, the complainant’s wife fell to the ground, sustaining injuries to her head, right elbow, right knee, left wrist, and left thumb. Based on the report lodged by the complainant, the Ganj police station registered a case and initiated an investigation under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the name of the applicant has not mentioned in the FIR, only on the basis of memorandum the concerned police has implicated the applicant. He further submits that the prosecution has not collected any material from the possession of the present applicant. He further submits that the present applicant has no 3 criminal antecedents. He also submits that, in the covering memo, one of the co-accused person, namely, Rahul Dewar, in MCRC No. 8827/2024 has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024, and another co-accused person, namely, Golu Dewar, in MCRC No. 5004/2024 has already been rejected bail by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2024. He further submits that the present applicant is in jail since 21.03.2024 and the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the present applicant along with co-accused persons snatched the purse containing a lot of items, such as gold jewelry, including a Rani Haar necklace, gold earrings, a locket, four gold rings, two silver rings, a pair of silver anklets, cash amounting to Rs. 9,000- 10,000, and a mobile phone, all valued at approximately Rs. 4 lakhs, and fled towards Fafadih Chowk. During the incident, the complainant’s wife fell to the ground, sustaining injuries to her head, right elbow, right knee, left wrist, and left thumb. She also submits that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedent under the, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender. As such, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the 4 fact that the present applicant along with co-accused persons snatched the purse containing a lot of items, such as gold jewelry, including a Rani Haar necklace, gold earrings, a locket, four gold rings, two silver rings, a pair of silver anklets, cash amounting to Rs. 9,000-10,000, and a mobile phone, all valued at approximately Rs. 4 lakhs, and fled towards Fafadih Chowk and during the incident, the complainant’s wife fell to the ground, sustaining injuries to her head, right elbow, right knee, left wrist, and left thumb, further the fact that the applicant has 02 previous criminal antecedents, covering memo shows that one of the co-accused person, namely, Rahul Dewar, in MCRC No. 8827/2024 has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 wherein the said co- accused had no criminal antecedents, on the other hand, another co-accused person, namely, Golu Dewar, in MCRC No. 5004/2024 has already been rejected bail by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2024, as he has 02 previous criminal antecedents, since the present applicant also has 02 criminal antecedents which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail, accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Bathwa Dewar, involved in Crime No. 5 94/2024 registered at Police Station- Ganj, District- Raipur, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan