Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8941 of 2024 Devika Chandrakar W/o Lt. Yupesh Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years R/o Naya Ravanbhata, Mahasamund, Police Station, Tehsil, And District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. Police Station- Gandai, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) AND 2025:CGHC:812 NAFR
Facts
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9016 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
offence of section 302 of IPC is prima facie appears to be made out against the applicant, as he has not made any assault upon the deceased. He would further submit that the premises from which the dead body was exhumed was not in his possession and it was owned by the owner of the residential complex, Shakeel Lohani. The prosecution allegedly tried to connect the applicant by producing an agreement between Shakeel Lohani and the present applicant, which was inadmissible in evidence. The alleged seizure of weapons like spade, crowbar was not found to be stained with human blood. Except the memorandum statement of the applicant, no other evidence collected during the investigation by the prosecution. He is also in jail since 28.05.2024 and the trial of the case will take its own time. Therefore, he may also be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that from the material collected during the investigation as well as from the memorandum statement of the applicant, Devika Chandrakar, it appears that she first assaulted the deceased by club and when he fell down, the co-accused Mukund Tripathi pressed his neck, wrapped his head by polythene and thereafter both of them have buried the dead body in the rented premises of the applicant Mukund Tripathi. On being pointing out by them, the dead body of the deceased was exhumed in a same condition which has been disclosed by the applicants in their memorandum statement. The spade, crowbar and other weapon have been seized on the instance 5 of the accused Mukund Tripathi. The statement of Shakeel Lohani is there who stated that the applicant Mukund Tripathi has taken the premises on rent from which the dead body was recovered. He would further submit that another statement of Yogesh Diwan is there who stated that he saw the applicant Mukund Tripathi taking a container from his house and he had a conversation as to whether he intended to vacate the premises, but he replied that he is going to deliver the parcel to his friend. Therefore, there is ample evidence available against the present applicants that they involved in the offence in question and they are not entitled for bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and the material collected during the investigation, further considering the role attributed by the applicants in the offence in question, the statement of the witnesses as also considering the fact that the dead body was recovered on pointing out by the applicants from the rented premises of the applicant Mukund Tripathi, I am not inclined to release them on bail. Accordingly, the present bail applications filed by the applicants are rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge 7. 8. 9. ved
Arguments
Mukund Tripathi S/o Late Shri Bhuneshwar Tripathi Aged About 45 Years R/o Sakin New Ravanbhata Police Station- City Kotwali Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund, C.G. --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund, C.G. (Cause title taken from Case Information System) --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 For Applicants For Respondent/State : : Mr. Avishek Sharma, Advocate Mr. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 06/01/2025 1. 2. Both these bail applications are arising out of the same crime number, therefore, they are being heard and decided together Both are the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail. The applicants have been arrested on 28.05.2024 in connection with Crime No. 265 of 2024, registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC. 3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 08.12.2023 there was a dispute between the deceased and his wife Devika Chandraker (applicant) which became aggravated and then the co-accused Anjani Chandrakar and her daughter Devika called the Mukund and when Mukund came to the house of Anjani Chandrakar, the deceased became more annoyed as to why the third person would intervene on their matter then the applicant Devika assaulted the deceased by lathi by which he fell down and died on the spot. Thereafter, the co-accused Anjani Chandrakar and the present applicants buried the dead body in the office premises of the applicant Mukund. On 14.12.2023 the applicant Devika lodged the missing report that her husband is missing since 08.12.2023 and his 3 whereabouts could not be traced out. During inquiry of missing person the dead body was recovered on pointing out by applicant Mukund Tripathi on 27.05.2024 and in the post-mortem it was opined that he died due to homicidal death. The offence has been registered and the applicants and other co-accused person have been arrested on 30.05.2024 and charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant- Devika Chandrakar (MCRC No. 8941 of 2024) would submit that there is no direct evidence against the present applicant that she also involved in the commission of the offence, rather she herself lodged a missing report that her husband is missing since 08.12.2023. There is no eyewitness to the incident. The dead body was recovered from the rented premises of the co- accused Mukund Tripathi and exhumed on pointing towards the co- accused Mukund Tripathi. She being the wife of the deceased, herself was in search of him. He would also submit that no weapon of offence has been seized from the present applicant- Devika Chandrakar. Except her memorandum statement, there is no other evidence available in the charge sheet to connect her in the offence in question. He would also submits that the co-accused Anjani Chandrakar has been released on bail vide order dated 09.12.2024 passed in MCRC No. 6651 of 2024 and the case of the present applicants are also similar to the case of Anjani Chandrakar. The applicant is a lady and is in jail since 28.05.2024, final adjudication of the case will take its own time. Therefore, she may be enlarged on bail. 4 5. Learned counsel for the applicant- Mukund Tripathi would submit that from the material collected during the investigation, there is no