RAJKUMAR SIDAR @ MANTRI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

These are four bail applications seeking for grant of bail to the Applicants who are in jail since September-October, 2017 onwards in connection

with Crime No. 414 of 2017 registered at Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 147,

148,149,302,294,506,452,323 and 427 IPC.

The allegation as per prosecution against the applicants are that, the present applicants is said to have along with other co-accused persons on

27.09.2017 gone to the shop of the complainant Arjun Rohra and there on account of some altercation between them, the applicants have assaulted

the complainant by Lathi and Danda on account of which the complainant Arjun Rohra sustained injuries. Arjun Rohra is said to have lodged FIR on

27.09.2017 at around 8:15 PM i.e. after one hour from the incident that took place at around 7 PM. Later on it is said the said complainant Arjun

Rohra expired on the same day. Postmortem of dead body was conducted and in the postmortem the cause of death shown was coronary artery

disease in a case of trauma.

Learned Counsel for the applicants submit that the deceased did not die a homicidal death and the cause of death was not due to the alleged injuries

sustained by him in the said incident. The initial MLC report was that the injuries sustained were not grievous in nature. It was further contended by

the applicants that the entire incident has been captured in the CCTV Camera installed in the shop of complainant himself. Further, even the CCTV

Camera does not give positive assertion of the present applicants involved in assaulting the complainant Arjun Rohra. All the applicants are young

boys, they have been falsely implicated in the case and are in jail since September-October, 2017 onwards and therefore they may be released on bail.

They further submits that even if the entire contents of FIR is taken into account, even then, offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out.

The State counsel as well as the counsel for the Objector opposing the appeal submit that there is specific allegation against all the applicants by the

witnesses examined during the course of investigation. That, the complainant himself has lodged the FIR immediately after the incident and he has

specifically named each of the applicants. His statement and the FIR also establishes the overt-act on the part of each of the applicants. Thus, prayed

for rejection of bail applications.

At this juncture it would be relevant to refer that this court on 22.01.2018 had asked the prosecution to get the recordings of CCTV footage

processed and a report be submitted before this court.

The prosecution has during the course of hearing produced a report dated 09.02.2018. A bare perusal of report would show that though all these

applicants were present in the shop of the complainant, however there does not show that these applicants were in possession of Lathi and Danda or

equipped with any sort of weapons, as has been stated by the complainant in his FIR. Moreover, the CCTV Camera report also does not divulge any

sort of major assault being given by the applicants to the complainant except for a minor scuffle.

Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case particularly taking into consideration that even in the CCTV Camera report there does not appear

any specific serious overt-act on the part of each of the applicants with any Club or Danda, this Court is of the opinion that these are fit cases where

the Applicants can be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, all the applications for grant of bail are allowed. It is directed that the all the Applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a

personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/-each with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for their appearance as

and when directed.