Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 43738 (CHH)

RAJU @ RAMBHAROS KUMETI v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/8110/2024 · 2025-01-09

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:1580 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8110 of 2024 Raju @ Rambharos Kumeti S/o Shri Ramji Kumeti Aged About 34 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Sawalibars, Thana Koilibeda, Tahsil Antaghad, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Koylibeda, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. UKS Chandel, Dy. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.01.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 21/2006 registered at Police Station – Koylibeda, District – Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 427/149 of the Indian Penal Code (In short, IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 3 of the Lok Sampatti Shati Nivaran Adhiniyam. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that it was allegation against the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 applicant that the applicant and others, in between 19-20 October, 2006, the applicant and others cause damage to public property that is Primary School. Further allegation are that they were having deadly weapon like Sabble, Gaitee and Fawada, and created unlawful assembly and cause loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 06.04.2024, and the conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is of the year 2006 and in compliance of the Court’s order dated 11.12.2024 the afÏdavit has been filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Uttar Bastar Kanker, which is taken on record, a total of 35 accused persons are said to have been involved in the present case out of which 17 have been tried and thereafter acquitted by the learned trial Court, and it is stated that the applicant was absconding in the present case and arrested by the Police on 06.04.2024 and the trial is under progress, and there is likelihood that the applicant will abscond if he would be allowed bail by this Court. As such, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and 3 also the fact that the present case is of the year 2006 and in compliance of the Court’s order dated 11.12.2024 the afÏdavit has been filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Uttar Bastar Kanker, which is taken on record, a total of 35 accused persons are said to have been involved in the present case out of which 17 have been tried and thereafter acquitted by the learned trial Court, and it is stated that the applicant was absconding in the present case and arrested by the Police on 06.04.2024 and the trial is under progress, and there is likelihood that the applicant will abscond if he would be allowed bail by this Court, thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. 7. Accordingly, this bail application of applicant – Raju @ Rambharos Kumeti involved in Crime No. 21/2006 registered at Police Station – Koylibeda, District – Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 427/149 of the IPC, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 3 of the Lok Sampatti Shati Nivaran Adhiniyam, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. 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 Rajshekhar