High CourtsSingle Bench

Samir Ali vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 28 May 2021 · Citation: (2021) 05 CHH CK 0164

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Singh Chandel, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 393, 454 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 1068 Of 2021
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

22 paragraphs · 411 words

Arvind Singh Chandel, J

1.

The Applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with

crime No. 525/2020, registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, District Baloda Bazar, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 393, 454, 34

and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

As per the prosecution story, on 12.8.2020 at about 2:15 PM, four unknown persons entered in the house of the complainant Shiv Narayan Soni and

tried to loot him. Thereafter, matter was reported by Shiv Narayan Soni against unknown persons. On the basis of the said, offence has been

registered. During course of investigation, present applicant was identified by the complainant at the time of T.I.P. Thereafter, he was arrested on

3.10.2020 and since then, he is in jail.

3.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further

submits that two of the accused persons are absconded in this case and other co-accused person namely Deepa Soni was granted bail by this Court

on 22.1.2021 passed in MCRC No. 7895/2020. With regard to present applicant, there is no any direct evidence against him. He further states that

complainant Shiv Narayan has been examined before trial Court and in his Court statement, he has not identified the present applicant. Therefore, it is

prayed that he may be granted bail.

4.

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

5.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6.

Taking into consideration the submissions put-forth on behalf of the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected

by the prosecution and after going through the Court statement of the complainant which has been submitted by the applicant which is annexed with

this application, and the fact that applicant is in custody since 3.10.2020, trial is likely to take some time, without further commenting on merits of the

case, I am inclined to release him on bail.

7.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8.

It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like

amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.