High CourtsSingle Bench

Meghni Prasad Narange vs State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 14 April 2014 · Citation: (2014) 3 CGLJ 123

HON’BLE JUDGES
Goutam Bhaduri, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294, 307, 323, 341, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M.Cr.C. No. 1558 of 2014
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

5 paragraphs · 446 words

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1.

This is an application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 318/2013 registered at P.S. Kasdol (C.G.) for the offence punishable u/s 341, 294, 506, 323, 307 IPC. As per the prosecution case, on 27.7.2013 the complainant victim while he was travelling on his motorcycle at village Lawan he was assaulted by this applicant by way of club and one blow was given on his head thereby he fell down and the other pillion rider Mohit Ram has also sustained injuries. It is the case of the prosecution that during the altercation, the incident happened and the injury was caused by the applicant.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that initially no offence was made out u/s 307 IPC and the way the incident happened due to heat exchange of words, it cannot be said that there was presence of intention to kill. He further submits that one of the injured Jogiram has been examined and according to his statement, one blow was given on his head and the other blow was caused on the leg. He would further submits that according to the medical report there was a lacerated wound 6x1x1 cm on the head but no fracture corresponding to the said injury was reported, therefore, the case u/s 307 IPC is not made out. He would further submit that injured Mohit Ram had sustained swelling on his leg measuring 3x2 cm. He would also submit that had there been any intention to kill, there would have been presence of much more injuries. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 06.8.2013 therefore, he may be granted regular bail.

3.

Per contra, learned state Counsel opposes the bail.

4.

I have gone through the statements of the injured witnesses and medical report of the complainant who has sustained one lacerated wound on the head but no fracture was reported. Having thus considered the statements and the medical report as also the nature of injuries and for the fact that the applicant is in jail for more than 8 months and the trial may take some time for hearing, I am inclined to release him on bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. He is directed to appear before the said Court on each and every date given by the said Court.