Ajay Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J

The applicant has preferred this second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested on 20-12-2023 in connection with Crime No. 52 of 2021 registered at Police Station – Bortalav, District Rajnandgaon (CG) for alleged commission of offences under Section 302, 193, 2-01, 120-B, 34 of IPC. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 11-9-2024 as withdrawn.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29-6-2021 a report was lodged in Police Station Bortalaw, District Rajnandgaon against unknown persons stating therein that on 24-6-2021 deceased namely Ramesh Janbandhu was missing after he left the house on 2-6-2021 at 4.00 am thereafter, a missing report vide No. 44 of 2021 was registered by the Police and upon investigation on 28-6-2021 a dead body was found at Raurkasa Dam in a decomposed state thereafter on suspicious a narc o test was conducted whereby Police arrested the applicant along with other co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Only on mere suspicion present applicant has been implicated as accused person whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again enumerated that suspicion however, grave cannot be the basis of conviction. He would further submit that prosecution has failed to collect any incriminating evidence against the present applicant and only on the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons Sagar Yadav (PW/11) and Khulendra Thakre (PW/12) present applicant has been arrested and the memorandum witnesses have denied the the contents of memorandum statement. He would further submit that FIR was lodged after two years of the incident and the present applicant has been arrested after three years of the incident. He would out of 39 witnesses, only 14 witnesses have been examined and remaining 25 witnesses have to be examined. He would further submit that the charge sheet has been filed, the applicant is in jail since 20-12-2023 and trial may take some time, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. .

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the aforesaid submissions would submit that under B.O.S. Narcotic test in question No. 77 and 80 the name of the accused has been reflected from the statement of

Sagar Ydav and Khulendra Thakre,, therefore, involvement of the applicant is there. She would further submit that the applicant has been charged under Section 302 and 201/34 of IPC , therefore, even if the memorandum statement is not there, involvement of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

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

Considering the fact that the name of the applicant has been shown in the Narcotic test and also considering the fact that out of 39 witnesses, 14 witnesses have already been examined and rest of 25 witnesses have to be

examined and any observation made by this Court may fatal to the prosecution or against the applicant also, therefore, in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajastahan and another, reported in 2024 INSC 909 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “in case of heinous offense when trial is being conducted, we are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused”. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the applicant should be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

It is made clear that this Court has not commented anything on the merit of the case as it may adversely affect the either party. The trial Court is directed to proceed with trial in accordance with law without being without being influenced from the decision of the bail.

Certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.