Abdul Rashid vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Both the bail applications are heard and decided together by this common order as they are arising out of the same crime number and the incident.

These are the first bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who

have been arrested in connection with Crime No.58/2017, registered at Police Station â€" P.S. Pondi, District â€" Korea (C.G.) for the offence

punishable under Section 294, 506, 323, 325, 326, 307, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Applicants are in jail since

12.03.2018 and 13.03.2018 respectively. Subsequent to the filing of charge-sheet for offence under Section 294, 506, 323, 326 of the Indian Penal

Code, a supplementary charge-sheet has been filed adding the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. It is submitted that the offence under Section 307

is not made out. As the case is before the trial Court and the trial is likely to take sometime for its completion, hence, it is prayed that the applicants

may also be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and the submission made in this respect. It is submitted that according

to the evidence present in the case diary, offence under Section 307 of I.P.C is made out, hence, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.

According to the prosecution case, the complainant Nafiz Ahmad and the applicants are related to each other and because of some dispute

regarding use of toilet, a quarrel took place in which both these applicants assaulted the injured Nafiz and other persons with rods causing injuries to

them. Shaft of humerous of Nafiz was fractured in this incident. Apart from that two other persons were also injured in this incident. Hence, this case.

Considered the submissions made and the contents of the case diary. Perusal of the case diary statement and the medical reports of the injured

persons, it appears that although the iron rods were used for ausing injures that has been caused is on the leg of the complainant and not on any other

vital part of the body, hence, registering the offence under Section 307 is debatable. Hence, this appears to be a quarrel resulted out of some dispute

between the neighbours. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case, in

which, the applicants should be enlarged on regular bail.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.

It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like

sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for their appearance as and when directed.

Certified copy as per rules.