Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22054 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2646 of 2025 Order Reserved on 25.04.2025 Order Delivered on 14.05.2025 Mangalram Mandavi S/o Sanauram Mandavi Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Chaniyagaon, P.S. Dhanora, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh .....Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dhanora, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant For State
Legal Reasoning
the applicant was rejected on merit by this Court in MCRC No. 3831 SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 13:20:57 +0530 2 of 2024 on 07.10.2024. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.04.2024 complainant Sanit Kumar Kunjam lodged a missing report of his father bearing missing report No. 06 of 2024 at Police Station Dhanora. On being received the said complaint, Inspector of police Station started investigation and recorded statements of the witnesses thereafter merg intimation No. 11 of 2024 under Section 174 CrPC was also registered. Subsequently the police arrested the applicants and their memorandum statements were taken under Section 27 of the Evidence Act wherein the applicants stated that on 28.03.2024 at about 9.30 o'clock while the deceased was returning to his village at that time they committed murder of the deceased and tried to disappear the evidence of incident have buried the dead body of the deceased near Jivala canal. On the basis of memorandum of accused skeleton of the deceased was recovered and the same was sent for postmortem and thereafter FIR under Section 302, 201, 34 of the IPC was registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that statements of PW-1 and PW-2 were recorded before the Court and the same are full of contradictions and omissions and lack trustworthiness, therefore, on their statements conviction cannot be made against the applicant. He would further submit that even if the statements of 3 witnesses are taken as it is it creates doubt over the prosecution story and draw strong presumption in favour of the applicant as he was not present at the time of incident. He would further submit that there is no evidence against the applicant by which it can be inferred that the applicant was involved in the said offence. He would further submit that the applicant and the deceased were not relatives and there was no dispute with regard to property, as such there was no motive on the part of the applicant to commit murder of the deceased. He would further submit the applicant was implicated in the case on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused, which is not a substantive piece of evidence to form the basis of conviction without other corroborative incriminating material. He would further submit that statements of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 have been recorded wherein they have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. He would further submit that material witnesses have already been examined before the Court, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution witnesses and there is no likelihood of absconding of the applicant. He would further submit that the prosecution has cited 31 witnesses out of which only 4 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, as such there is no chance of conclusion of the trial in near future and the applicant is in jail since 01.05.2024 and would pray for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the contentions raised by counsel for the applicant and would submit the applicant was named in the FIR. He would further submit that on the basis of memorandum statements of the co- accused certain articles were recovered which prima-facie suggests that the dead body belonged to deceased. He would further submit that there is no change of circumstances, as such at this stage the applicant may not be granted bail. He would further submit that there is sufficient connecting/circumstantial evidence available against the applicant, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary and documents available on record. 6. Considering the memorandum statements of the eye witnesses namely Sanjesh Kumar, Sonsingh, Samir Nag, Vijay Kumar Salam, Laxman Netam were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and the fact that named FIR has been registered against the applicant. Further considering the fact that the trial has already been begun and role played by the applicant in commission of offence and also considering the fact that he was charged for causing disappearance of the evidence, nowhere applicant has disputed about his presence at the place of occurrence and there was old enmity regarding property dispute between the deceased and the co-accused, which prima-facie, suggests his involvement 5 in the crime in question, therefore, at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that present is not a fit case for grant of regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is also rejected. 7. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court while rejecting the bail application of the applicant will not come in the way in deciding the trial by the learned trial Court and the same will be decided on its own merit strictly in accordance with the law. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh
Arguments
: Mr. Asseem Bhagwat Gopal, Advocate : Mr. Kishanlal Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Order 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 01.05.2024 in connection with Crime No. 19/2024 registered at Police Station- Dhanora, District Kondagaon (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. First bail application of