Advocates:
['VIPIN TIWARI', '', 'PUSHPA TIWARI', 'A G']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MCRC No. 711 of 2022

Balkaran @ Govind Yadav S/o Rampravesh Yadav, aged about 19

years, R/o Sindhi Colony, Jhulelal Mandir Ke Pas, Durg, District

Durg, CG

---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Mohan Nagar Durg,

District Durg CG

---- Respondent

For Applicant

-

Shri Vipin Tiwari, Adv.

For State

-

Shri Alok Nigam, GA

Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

21

/04/2022

This first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed by the applicant who is in custody in connection with

Crime No. 406/2020 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg,

for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148 IPC and Sections 25,

27 Arms Act.

2.

Case of the prosecution in short is that on 18.12.2020 an FIR was

lodged by the complainant namely Jasmeet Singh alias Jassi Singh to the

effect that there was some quarrel between deceased Pratik alias Lucky

Parihar and accused Kishan Chandrakar over mobile phone. Thereafter,

present applicant and other accused persons came there carrying various

weapons with them such as shock absorber, knife, iron pipe, stick etc and

started assaulting Pratik alias Lucky Parihar by forming a common intention

to cause his death. Present applicant is said to have used iron pipe in so

doing whereas main accused Ravi Chandrakar had allegedly dealt two blows

with knife – one on stomach and the other on chest.

2

3.

Counsel for the applicant, pointing at the innocence of the applicant,

submits that he - a young boy aged about 19 years has been implicated in a

false case. He submits that apart from three minors, four other accused

persons namely Vijay Sarthi @ Bittu, Lalla Sarthi @ Bhagyawan Sarthi, Deo

Prakash and Bhupesh Yadav have already been granted bail by the co-

ordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, the present applicant may also be

extended the same benefit. He further submits that the lodger of the report

has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

4.

On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail appliction and

submits that out of the persons bailed out, three were juvenile and the

remaining others remained un-named in the FIR whereas the present

applicant's name is very much mentioned therein to be one of the active

participants using iron pipe in commission of the crime as stated above.

5.

Having heard counsel for the parties, considered the seriousness of

the allegations made against the applicant, and the specific role attributed to

him, this Court is not inclined to release him on bail. Application is

accordingly rejected.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

Judge

Jyotishi