Tanakki Venkateshwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

The applicants have preferred this bail application for grant of anticipatory bail, as they apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime

No.1419/2021 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Raigarh C.G. for the offence punishable under Section 306, 34 of the I.P.C.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.9.2021 at about 10-12 pm deceased Mohpal Singh Netam committed suicide by hanging for which

offence has been registered against the present applicants.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants have falsely been implicated in crime in question. He would further submit there

is no evidence against the applicants and if they are arrested detention will be unreasonable as also applicants have no previous criminal antecedent

and are reputed persons of the locality, therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application. He would further submit that two suicide notes have been

recovered from the incident; in first note deceased has not mentioned anyone but in other note he has named the present applicants for cause of his

suicide. However, in the suicide notes there is no any such detail mentioning the cause of such extreme step.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case; particularly considering the nature of allegation, therefore, without commenting

anything on merit, I am inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants.

Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on

anticipatory bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting

officer with the following conditions:-

(i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) the applicants shall not influence the witnesses during pendency of the trial.