Santosh Sori And Others v. State Of Chhattisgarh
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6985 of 2016
1. Santosh Sori S/o Mansharam, Aged About 33 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Badrangi, Thana Koyalibeda, Tahsil Pakhanjore District Utter Baster Kanker
2. Manguram, S/o Late Somaruram Aged About 60 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Badrangi, Thana Koyalibeda, Tahsil Pakhanjore, District Utter Baster Kanker
3. Suklal Aanchala, S/o Devsaya Aanchala, Aged About 36 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Badrangi, Thana Koyalibeda, Tahsil Pakhanjore, District Utter Baster Kanker
4. Ramuram Darro, S/o Kangluram Darro, Aged About 40 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Badrangi, Thana Koyalibeda, Tahsil Pakhanjore, District Utter Baster Kanker
5. Jaisingh Dugga, S/o Dasrath Dugga, Aged About 32 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Badrangi, Thana Koyalibeda, Tahsil Pakhanjore, District Utter Baster Kanker
6. Pinesh Darro, S/o Kagluram Aged About 35 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Badrangi, Thana Koyalibeda, Tahsil Pakhanjore, District Utter Baster Kanker --- Applicants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Koyalibeda District Utter Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For the applicants :
Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For the Respondent :
Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 09.11.2016
1. This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 17 of 2011 registered at P.S. Kohyalibeda, Tahsil Pakhanjore Distt. Kanker (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 453 of IPC and sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act &
Section 10(B), 15, 20, 38, 39(1)(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 03.02.2011 when the construction work of roads and culverts was going on from village Kalgoan to village Hindubinapal at that time the applicant armed with guns came in a group and objected to carrying out construction works and thereafter set on fire the equipments/instruments which were being used for preparation of road works, thereby the offence is committed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the identification of applicants has not been made and they have been falsely implicated and no evidence is existing against the applicants to connect them with the crime, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail.
5. Perused the statement of Saktinath Pandey who lodged the FIR wherein the applicants have been named.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. Accordingly, it is rejected.
7. The trial Court is requested to expedite the trial. Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o