Nirmal Kumar Jhadi And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J

These appeals arise out of orders passed by the Special Judge, by which appellant's application for grant of bail has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant has been involved in the alleged commission of offence on the basis that some of

the co-accused in their memorandum statement stated regarding appellant is recipient of regular supply of explosive substance. He would submit that

however many witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. They would further submit that in these

circumstance the prosecution case, prima-facie does not show any quantity explosive seized from the physical possession of the applicant or that in

any particular case the applicant supplied explosive or involved any naxalite activity, at this stage the appellant may be granted bail.

As far as appellant Ramuram Nag is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that his involvement in the alleged commission of

offence is based only on suspicion. He has not been named in the memorandum of other co-accused as he has involved in the alleged commission of

offence.

On the other hand learned State counsel, opposes the prayer and submits that the appellant Nirmal has not disclosed the fact that his earlier appeal

which was filed rejected by the coordinate bench of this counsel on 10.12.2019, while hearing the appeal again the rejection of bail order of the

present appellant and another co-accused namely Jadupati Harijan. Learned counsel for the State would submit that there are serious allegation of

regular supply of explosive involving the present appellants in the crime in question and mostly supplied for naxalite activities. He submitted that

thought the trial has not been concluded, it is on the verge of conclusion and the learned court below has rejected the application on the ground that the

IO of the case has not been examined.

As far as appellant Ramuram Nag is concerned, learned State counsel would submit that clear allegation of the explosive material on the

memorandum of the present appellant from the house of Phekuram and IO is yet to be examined.

We find that the appellant Nirmal has filed appeal without disclosing the fact that his earlier application for bail was rejected by this Court on

10.12.2019 and on 22.01.2020. It appears that bail application have been filed mainly on the ground that some of the witnesses of memorandum have

not supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Court has rejected the bail applications at this stage considering that some other important

witnesses are yet to be examined and the allegation are grave in nature and that the web of supply of explosive and possible use of the same by

naxalite activity and gravity of the allegation in the present case. Considering the aforesaid material, we are not inclined to grant the bail to the

appellants. Appeals are therefore, dismissed.