Manish Mandal S/o Late Shri Uttam Mandal vs State of Chhattisgarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Chh) 435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Manish Mandal S/o Late Shri Uttam Mandal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
M.C.R.C. No. 3396 of 2023
Decided On : 12-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sunil Sahu.
For the Respondent: Vinod Tekam.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Offence of murder – Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail – Held, On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes bail application – He submits that it is husband of deceased, who gave information with regard to commission of suicide by deceased, however, in Postmortem report, it has been categorically mentioned and also opined that deceased was strangulated and nature of death was ‘homicidal’ – He would submit that medical expert has not been examined, present is not a fit case to enlarge applicant on bail – Bail application dismissed.

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 48/2020 registered at Police Station Bande, District North Baster Kanker (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the present applicant is the husband of the deceased. After committing the murder of the deceased by throttling, the applicant hung her dead body on a fan with a Sari to make it look like she has committed suicide and also to conceal the evidence. Hence, the aforesaid offence has been registered.

4. Leaned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in a Sari on the fan. He would further submits that against the applicant, an offence under Section 306 of the IPC would be made out and not an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. He submits that the applicant has been in jail since last more than 2 years and 7 months and the material witnesses have also been examined. Hence, learned counsel for the applicant prays to release the applicant on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. He submits that it is the husband of the deceased, who gave information with regard to commission of suicide by the deceased, however, in the Postmortem report, it has been categorically mentioned and also opined that the deceased was strangulated and the nature of death was ‘homicidal’. He would further submit that medical expert has not been examined, therefore, the present is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularity considering the nature of allegations, which are serious and the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document