High CourtsDivision Bench

Omprakash Singh vs State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 13 February 2006 · Citation: (2006) 3 CGLJ 136

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302, 34
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M.Cr.C. No. 3239 of 2005
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

10 paragraphs · 424 words

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—Heard.

2.

This is an application field u/s 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the Applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 342/2005 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that on 30.7.2005. the dead body of the deceased namely Banauram, an old man aged about 70 years was seen in his house. The matter was reported to the Police. During the enquiry, the present Applicant was taken into custody on 3.8.2005 and a memorandum u/s 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and in consequence of the memorandum, a silver ring and a blood stained shirt of the Applicant were seized on 3.8.2005.

4.

Learned State Counsel submits that there is no identification of the silver ring of the deceased.

5.

On the last date of hearing the State had taken time on the pretext that the shirt said to have been seized from the possession of the Applicant has been sent for chemical examination and the report has not been received. Learned State Counsel submits that today also report is not available with him.

6.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that there appears to be no legal evidence against the Applicant as there is no identification of the aforesaid silver ring and the report of the blood stained shirt said to have been seized from the Applicant has also not been received. He prays for releasing the Applicant on bail.

7.

On the other hand learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. However, he submits that except the aforesaid memorandum and the recoveries, there is no other evidence against the present Applicant. However it comes in the statement of other witnesses that on the date of incident, the Applicant has visited the house of the deceased twice between 8 and 10 p.m.

8.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly considering the nature of evidence collected by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case to enlarge the Applicant on bail.

9.

His application filed u/s 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed.

10.

Let the Applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on each date of hearing till disposal of the trial.