High CourtsSingle Bench

Dileep vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 4 May 2018 · Citation: (2018) 05 CHH CK 0020

HON’BLE JUDGES
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294, 506, 324, 342, 498A, 34
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M.Cr.C. No.2387, 2839 of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 393 words
1.

Both the bail applications arise out of a same crime number, therefore, they are decided together by this common order.

2.

These are the first bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the Applicants who have

been arrested in connection with Crime No.18 of 2018 registered at Police Station Basantpur, Police District Balrampur for offence punishable under

Sections 294, 506, 324, 342, 498A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.2.2018, Complainant Basanti Rajak, sister of Lilawati lodged a report alleging that marriage of

Lilawati was performed with Applicant Dileep 15 years prior to the date of incident. On 7.2.2018, Lilawati came to her house and told her that

Applicant Dileep, Applicant Rajendra and one Gomtibai, alleging that she (Lilawati) had an illicit relationship with one Pappu Dhobi, beat her and

ousted her from the house. On the basis of the said report, aforesaid offence has been registered and the Applicants have been arrested.

4.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that the FIR has been lodged belatedly and the same was not lodged by victim Lilawati, but

was lodged by her sister Basanti. The offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class. Applicant Dileep is in custody since 12.2.2018 and

Applicant Rajendra is in custody since 9.4.2018. Trial will take a long time. Therefore, the Applicants may be released on bail.

5.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/State opposes the bail applications.

6.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material available with due care.

7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, Applicant Dileep is

in custody since 12.2.2018 and Applicant Rajendra is in custody since 9.4.2018, trial is likely to take time, without further commenting on merits of the

case, I am inclined to release the Applicants on bail.

8.

Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed.

9.

It is directed that the Applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one solvent

surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for their appearance before the said Court as and when directed.