Station Sanawal, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Sanawal, District Ba
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:19428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3265 of 2025 Pradeep Yadav S/o Thakur Das Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Kameshwar Nagar Yadavpara, Police Station Sanawal, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Sanawal, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed." 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the earlier bail application of the applicant has already been rejected on merits and while rejecting the bail application of the applicant, the trial was expedited to be concluded within a period of six months and the same has not concluded within the prescribed time. 9. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the applicant as to on what date the order passed by this Court expediting the trial was produced before the trial Court, he could not give any satisfactory answer for the same nor could he demonstrate 5 the same from the bail application. Further, the ground which has been raised for filing the present second bail application is that out of 29 prosecution witnesses, 06 witnesses have been examined but the same cannot be a ground to release the applicant on bail and the trial is in progress, as such, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 10. Accordingly, this second bail application of applicant – Pradeep Yadav, involved in Crime No. 65/2023, registered at Police Station : Sanawal, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the IPC, is rejected. 11. However, this Court hope and trusts that the trial Court would make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment 12. 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 Kunal
Arguments
: Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29.04.2025 Order on Board 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 65/2023, registered at Police Station : Sanawal, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the IPC. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 4296 of 2024 vide order dated 02.08.2024 on 2 merits. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the marriage of applicant was solemnized with the diseased on 07.05.2017 as per their cast and custom. After their marriage the quarrel was taken place between them, it is also stated that, the applicant and his wife settled their disputes but on 15.12.2023 one Vijay Yadav given information through his mobile to father for diseased namelyShambhunath Yadav that, the applicant's wife namely Tara Yadav consumed poison and she has been taken into Gov. Hospital, Wadrafnagar and she was also referred to District Hospital Ambikapur but in the midway the diseased was unconscious therefore she was taken in the Gov. Hospital, Pratappur, where the doctor of Gov. Hospital, Pratappur declared her to be death. On the basis of merg intimation the police of Police Station, Sanawal lodged First Information Report against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits and while rejecting the bail application of the applicant the trial was expedited to be concluded within a period of six months and the same has not concluded within a prescribed time. He further submits that the new ground for filing of the second bail application is that out of 29 prosecution witnesses, 06 witnesses have been examined. Further the applicant 3 filed statement of the Witness No. one to six (Annexure A/3). The deceased of the mother it is correct to say that the applicant had demanded a motor cycle from her daughter in dowry, the witness himself says that he had given hero Honda passion pro to the applicant in dowry but the accused was demanding Honda Singh apache and the applicant is in jail since 19.12.2023, and the conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application and submits that the earlier bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court being MCRC No. 4296/2024, vide order dated 02.08.2024, on merits as such, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of X Vs. State of Rajasthan and another in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024 decided on 27-11-2024 has observed in the said order that.- "14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused." 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed 4 and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.”