1 - Akkal Baiga S/o Buddhu Singh Baiga, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Kukdur, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8843 of 2024 1 - Akkal Baiga S/o Buddhu Singh Baiga, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village- Nagadabra (wrongly mention as Nagdabra in impugned order), Mathpur P.S. Kukdur, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Budhvarin Bai Baiga W/o Shri Akkal Singh Baiga, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village- Nagadabra (wrongly mention as Nagdabra in impugned order), Mathpur P.S. Kukdur, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. … Applicants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Kukdur, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mahesh Mishra, Advocate. For State/Non-applicant : Mr. Atanu Gosh, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 06-01-2025 Order on Board 1. This is first bail application seeking grant of bail to the applicants who are in jail since 22-02-2024 in connection with Crime No.21/2024 registered at Police Station Kukdur, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201, 120(B), 147, 148, 149 and 436 of the IPC. 2. As per prosecution case, on 15-01-2024 the Kotwar of the village Akkal Singh informed the police that at about 7 AM he saw that smoke were coming out from the house of deceased Budhram Baiga and when he went on the spot, Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 he saw that the entire house of the deceased Budhram Baiga was burnt and Budhram Baiga, his wife Hirmani Bai and their son Jolhu Ram died due to burn injuries. The police recorded Merg intimation and started inquiry. During merg inquiry the statement of witnesses Lal Singh, Shanti Bai and Kamlesh Shriwas were recorded in which they disclosed that on 14-01-2024 quarrel ensued between the deceased persons and the accused party regarding crop of field and then in the same night they saw that accused persons including accused Santu Ram Baiga and Sukhsingh Baiga have committed murder of the deceased persons by giving Axe blow and thereafter the house of deceased persons started burning and they identified the accused persons there. The police registered FIR and the applicants and other accused persons have been arrested. During investigation, the dead bodies were sent for postmortem and the cause of death of the deceased Budhram Baiga was opined that he died due to antimortem burn injuries. With respect to cause of death of deceased Hirmani Bai and Jolhu Ram, the doctor opined that cause and manner of death cannot be ascertained properly due to bodies being charred. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the offence. Only due to the dispute with the deceased persons with the applicants they have been implicated in the offence, whereas, they were only present on the spot along with other villagers, but they have not committed any offence. The deceased persons died due to burning of their house, but there is no evidence as to the applicants have burnt the house of the deceased persons. There is no evidence against applicant No.2 Budhvarin Bai Baiga and no one has named her in in any part of the investigation. It only comes against applicant No.1 Akkal Baiga that he was present on the spot at the time of incident. When the house of the deceased persons was burning the persons of the vicinity were 3 gathered, but they have not stated any active participation of the applicants in the offence in question. Therefore, they may be released on bail as final adjudication of the case may take some time. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that there is statement regarding active participation of applicant No.1 Akkal Baiga, however, against applicant No.2 Budhvarin Bai Baiga it comes in the memorandum statement of Charu Baiga and Santu Baiga that after the incident applicant Budhvarin Bai Baiga had gone to her house and from the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of witness Bhukalu Ram Baiga it comes that applicant No.2 Budhvarin Bai Baiga was standing on the place of incident and none of the witnesses have stated about her active participation of in the offence in question. However, there is active role attributed to the applicant No.1 Akkal Baiga in the offence in question. Further, bail application of co-accused Santu Ram Baiga and Sukhsingh Baiga, i.e., MCRC No.5708 of 2024 has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14-11-2024. Therefore, the present applicants are not entitled for bail. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations and the material collected during the investigation, further considering the evidence against applicant No.1 Akkal Baiga and his participation in the offence in question, I am not inclined to release him on bail. However, considering the evidence collected during the investigation against applicant No.2 Budhvarin Bai Baiga that no active role has been played by her in the offence in the question and she was only standing there along with her husband, further that she is a lady and is in jail since 22-02- 2024, I am inclined to release her on bail. 6. Accordingly, the prayer made by applicant No.1 Akkal Baiga in the present bail application is rejected. However, the prayer made by applicant No.2 Budhvarin Bai Baiga for grant of regular bail in the present application is allowed. It is directed that applicant No.2 Budhvarin Bai Baiga shall be 4 released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, on the following conditions :- (i) She shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court ; (ii) She shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iii) She shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial unless her personal presence is exempted by the trial Court. Aadil Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge