Shivkumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

The applicants have preferred this second bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail as they have been arrested in

connection with Crime No.142/2020, registered at Police Station Lundra, Dist. Surguja (CG), for the offence under  Sections 395, 506(B) of the

Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act.

The first bail application of the applicants along with other connected bail applications were rejected on merits by order dated 19-7-2021.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.11.2020 at 5.30 p.m., the applicants Shiv Kumar patel, Mukesh Patel, Ravi Ghasi & Mohd. Shahbaj

Firdoushi @ Monti came to the shop of complainant by motorcycle and they firstly asked for the petrol which was given by the complainant and

thereafter when the doors of the shops were opened, they have forcibly entered and committed dacoity and looted Rs.3,98,000/- in cash and other

jewelery worth Rs.1,50,000/- (total Rs.5,08,000) from the shop and the house of complainant.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated. He would further submit that the complainant has

been examined before the Court below and he has not identified the applicant No.2 Mukesh Patel. Seizure witnesses have also not supported the case

of prosecution, therefore, there is change in the circumstances and hence the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the State, per contra, would oppose the bail application. She would submit that there are serious criminal antecedents against

the applicants including the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. According to the State counsel, the Executive Magistrate, who conducted the

identification, has still not been examined, therefore, there is no change in the circumstances and thus the applicants may not be enlarged on bail.

Considering the entire facts situation of the case, particularly considering the statement of PW-1 Abhay Gupta, at this stage, it would not be proper

for this Court to interpret the evidence. It is for the trial Court to interpret the evidence of complainant along with other evidence including the

evidence of Executive Magistrate, who conducted the Test Identification Parade (TIP), therefore, I do not find any change in the circumstances to

consider the bail application of the applicants. Thus, I am of the opinion that present is not a fit case to release the applicants on regular bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.