NANDLAL VISHWAKARMA @ NANDU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
MCRC/1383/2025 · 2025-02-18
Shri Arvind Kumar Verma
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9399 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9399 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:8455
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 1383 of 2025 Nandlal Vishwakarma @ Nandu S/o Late Dinanath Vishwakarma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Maheshpur Latori, Police Station Jainagar At Present R/o Main Road Godripara Chirmiri, Police Station and Tehsil Chirmiri, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.).
... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer-in-Charge Chirmiri, Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya (C.G.).
---- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ___________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Ramcharan Sahu, Advocate For State-Respondent : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board 18/02/2025
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.34/2023 registered at Police Station Chirmiri, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of
2 IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.06.2022 at about 11:30 O’clock, the applicant took liquor and due to some disputes with his wife, the applicant poured kerosene oil on the body of the deceased/wife and burned her. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the instant case. He further contended that at the time of so-called incident the applicant was not present at the spot. Therefore, offence u/s 302, 201 of the IPC is not made out against the applicant. The prosecution has examined material witnesses before the trial Court, but didn't support the prosecution case, and when we peruse the deposition sheet of the witnesses then it reveals, that applicant is an innocent person. Applicant also burned when he was saving life of his wife. He further contended that FIR was registered after more than 05 months 15 days, is creates reasonable doubts on the prosecution story. He further contended that the so-called dying declaration of the deceased is also doubtful. because on the dying declaration no signature of the deceased. and took thumb impressions of the deceased, while the deceased was highly educated lady and she was serving as a Teacher. The applicant is in jail since 19.01.2023 and the trial will take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore the applicant
3 may be released on bail.
4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by
learned counsel for the applicant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties and further considering that the trial Court finds that on 02.06.2022, Nandlal Vishwakarma was fighting with his wife Anshika after drinking alcohol in his house and during that time, he sprinkled kerosene on his wife and set her on fire with a matchstick, due to which his wife Anshika got burnt and the people around her house admitted her to the hospital from where Anshika was admitted to DKS Hospital, Raipur on 03.06.2022 and died during treatment on 13.06.2022. The charge framed against the accused in the case is of very serious nature and appears to be of non-bailable and serious nature. Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No.34/2023 registered at Police Station Chirmiri, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC, is rejected.
4
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant