CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Muchaki Bhima vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 10 March 2022 · Citation: (2022) 03 CHH CK 0021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J · Rajani Dubey, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 — Section 21(4) · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 148 · Explosive Substances Act, 1908 — Section 4, 5
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 286 Of 2022
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

7 paragraphs · 328 words

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

1.

The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 21.2.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (Naxal), Dakshin Bastar Dantewada, by which their application under Section 439 of the CrPC has been rejected.

2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.11.2020 the appellants were setting I.I.D. bomb in motion to harm the life of security forces and their property, etc. and while noticing the presence of police party, they absconded from the spot and immediately thereafter explosives materials and cash of Rs.22,400/­ were seized from the spot and thereby committed the offence under Section 148 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

3.

Mr.P.K.Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the appellants have not committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in crime in question. Only on the basis of dehali nalishi, the appellants have been arrested. There is no seizure and no memorandum statements of the present appellants. He would further submit that number of witnesses have been examined and they have turned hostile, they are in jail since 19.11.2020 and no useful purpose would be served by detaining them in jail.

4.

On the other hand, Mr.Sunil Otwani, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, would submit that the appellants have been noticed setting I.I.D. bomb in motion and there is sufficient evidence available on record to connect the present appellants for offence in question.

5.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also gone through the documents appended with appeal.

6.

Taking into consideration the nature & gravity of offence, facts & circumstances of the case and evidence available in case diary against the present appellants, we do not find it a fit case to set­aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.