[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Diyabati @ Ayate Salam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:17440
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2159 of 2025
1.
Diyabati @ Ayate Salam D/o Devisingh Salam Aged About 32
Years Caste Gond R/o Patelpara Marda Police Station
Koyalibeda District – Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
… Applicant(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer
Police Station Koyalibeda District – Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
… Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate
For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order On Board
16.04.2025
1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video
conferencing.
2. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under
Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection
with Crime No. 03/2010, registered at Police Station
Koyalibeda, District – Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.), for the
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
MANISH YADAV
YADAV Date:
2025.04.21
15:12:19
+0530
2offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of
IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act.
3. Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Ravinda
K.Mandavi has lodged the report on 07.01.2010 before the
Police Station Koyalibeda, District – Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
stated that on the date of incident i.e. 07.01.2010 at about
01:30 PM, the present applicant alongwith other co-accused
has committed offence against the police force. The present
accused/applicant is one of the member in the unlawful
assembly to commit the offence. It has been further alleged
that the present applicant along with other co-accused was
doing the firing against the police force. On the basis of the
which, a crime was registered against the applicant. Hence,
this application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
applicant is innocent person and he has not committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is falsely
implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the
applicant has no any criminal antecedents of similar nature. He
also submits that on the basis of the memorandum statement
of the co-accused, the applicant has made accused in the
present case. It has been further submitted that co-accused
during trial has been acquitted, the applicant stated to be
absconded and on the arrest warrant, she has been arrested
3
on 06.04.2024. He further submits that the charge-sheet has
been submitted and the applicant is in jail since 06.04.2024.
Therefore, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes
the bail application and also endorse the submission made by
the learned counsel for the applicant, He also submitted that
the injured has sustained grievous injuries and charge-sheet
has been filed, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on
bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature
and gravity of allegation made against the applicant and the
fact that the applicant is a lady and the co-accused has already
been acquitted and her name has come into the light in the
memorandum statement of the co-accused, further the charge-
sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent
Court and she is in jail since 06.04.2024, therefore, this Court
is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on
bail in this case.
8. Let applicant, Diyabati @ Ayate Salam, involved in Crime No.
03/2010, registered at Police Station Koyalibeda, District –
Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.), for the offence punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27
4
of Arms Act, be released on bail on her furnishing personal
bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of
the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the
effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on
the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses
are present in court. In case of default of this
condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat
it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with lawh.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the
trial court on each date fixed, either personally or
through their counsel. In case of his absence,
without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against her under Section 269 of BNS.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of
bail during trial and in order to secure his
presence, proclamation under Section 84 of
BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear
before the Court on the date fixed in such
proclamation, then, the trial Court shall initiate
proceedings against her, in accordance with law,
under Section 209 of BNS.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person,
before the trial Court on the dates fixed for (i)
5opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of
BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial Court absence
of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial Court to
treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and
proceed against her in accordance with law.
9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall
make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously
as possible within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal
impediment.
10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the
trial Court concerned for necessary information and
compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Manish
[ad_2]
Source link