Narendra Nag v. The State of Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh

For Appellant For Respondent/State : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G. : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

29.07.2021 Order on Board

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth 'the Act of 1989') has been preferred against the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by learned Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh rejecting application of appellant for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.106 of 2021 registered at Police Station Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 34, 120(B), 460 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has initially filed MCRC, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appeal under Section 14 of the Act of 2 1989, and thereafter, this appeal is filed.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 17.04.2021, at about 23.00 hours, some known person took Bevan Hidko from his house and committed murder. During course of investigation, statement of Sukmaya Hidko (second wife of deceased) was recorded, in which, she made allegation against Govind, brother of Vinda (first wife). Based on the statement of Sukmaya Hidko, Govind was arrested and on his memorandum statement, applicant was also arrested in the crime on 26.04.2021.

Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant is not involved in any manner in the aforementioned crime. He submits that initially, report was lodged against unknown person. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of Sukmaya Hidko, there is no allegation against any specific person, but only stated that three persons were involved in commission of crime. She stated that she could identify the voice of Govind. There is no material available in case diary against appellant except memorandum statement of Govind. Appellant is in jail since

22.04.2021, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, Mr. H. S. Ahluwalia, Dy. Advocate General for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and submits that Sukmaya Hidko is known to Govind and she in her statement has stated that she identified the voice of Govind just before the incident. 3 After arrest of Govind, his memorandum statement was recorded, in which, he took name of present appellant to have accompanied him in commission of aforementioned crime. Based on the memorandum statement of co-accused Govind, appellant was arrested and at his instance, blood stained Gamchha and Shirt were seized from the possession of appellant. In FSL report, it has come that blood stained found on cloths seized from the appellant was of a human blood, hence, there is prima facie involvement of appellant in aforementioned crime.

At this stage, Mr. Kotecha submits that though in FSL report, blood stained has been reported to be human blood, but in the same report, there is no mention that blood stained found is of same blood group as of blood group of deceased, hence, based on the said evidence, appellant could not be convicted in aforementioned crime.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, as also nature of material collected by Police during the course of investigation, further submission of learned counsel for the parties, appellant is in jail since 22.04.2021, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the appellant on regular bail.