Order on Board

(Proceeding through Video Conferencing)

09.02.2022

1. Shri Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is third bail application. First application came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 27.10.2021 to repeat the same at appropriate stage. Thereafter, second bail application was filed before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.12.2021 with liberty to file better constituted petition, as along with bail application, order sheets of trial Court were not filed.

2. Applicant has preferred this third bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as he was arrested in connection with Crime No.229 of 2021 registered at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC.

3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that, on 15.04.2021 complainant- Ajay Kumar Sahu lodged report with concerned Police Station stating therein that in the intervening night of 14-15.04.2021, some unknown persons broke open lock of his shop and committed theft of Rs.60,000/-, ten mobile phones of Itel Company, five mobile phones of Micromax Company, two old mobile phones deposited for repairing, two wrist watches and four goggles. Based on report, FIR was registered against unknown persons. During investigation, applicant was arrested on 02.05.2021 along with other co-accused persons.

4. Shri Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the applicant submits that one of the co-accused person Sachin Kumar, who was arrested and subsequently released on bail is not appearing before trial Court. Arrest warrant against him was also issued by trial Court on 15.12.2021. As one of the co-accused person is not appearing before the Court below after his release on bail, there is no satisfactory progress in trial, even charges have not been framed till date. Offence lodged against applicant is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Applicant is in jail since 02.05.2021. There are as many as 9 enlisted prosecution witnesses for examination and trial may take some time for conclusion. Hence, applicant may be enlarged on regular bail.

5. Shri GP Kurre, learned State counsel opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that applicant is habitual offender. As mentioned in case diary, two other criminal antecedents are registered against him, one in the year 2014 and another in 2020 for commission of similar offence. Hence, he is not entitled for regular bail.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations against applicant, period of detention as also perusal of order sheet placed on record of trial would show that one of co-accused Sachin Kumar is not appearing before trial Court after his release on bail, submission of learned counsel for the applicant that charges have not been framed till date and offence to be triable by JMFC, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

8. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court on the condition that:

a) Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

b) Applicant shall not in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c) If the applicant is found involved in similar offence in future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of bail.

Certified copy as per rules.