Advocates:
['B P SINGH', '', 'AKHILESH MISHRA', 'KHUSHBU VERMA', 'A G']

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MCRC No. 708 of 2017

•

Shanker Niyal S/o Benudhar Niyal, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village

Gondbhanga, Post Dallipali, Police Station Khaprakhol, District

Balangir Orissa – Applicant

Versus

•

State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station

Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh --- Respondent

MCRC No. 744 of 2017

•

Shanker Niyal S/o Benudhar Niyal Aged About 19 Years R/o Village

Gondbhanga, Post Dallipali, Police Station Khaprakhol, District

Balangir ( Orissa) --- Applicant

Versus

•

State of Chhattisgarh through: Station House Officer, Police Station,

Balod, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent

For the applicant

:

Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent

:

Mr. Anant Bajpai, Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order on Board

01.03.2017

1. These are two bail applications filed under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to

the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC.

M.Cr.C.No.708/2017 is relating to Crime No. 588/2016

registered at P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara and M.Cr.C.No.

744/2017 is relating to Crime No.186/2016 registered at

Police station Balod, Distt. Balod (C.G). Since the applicant

is the same person who is involved in both the crime

numbers relating to similar offence, these bail applications

are decided together by this common order.

2. As per the prosecution case, in Crime No.588/2016 a report

was made by Yashwant Sahu on 26.10.2016 that on

29.09.2016 his motorcycle bearing No.C.G.08-F/8685 was

stolen from Bemetara. Subsequently the applicant was

arrested in Crime No.6 of 2016 wherein on enquiry it was

revealed that he along-with his other companions have

stolen 25 two wheelers from different places of Raipur,

Korba, Durga, Bilaspur, Bemetara etc. The present applicant

thereafter on memorandum revealed that the motorcycle

which was stolen was kept in a parking place of hospital and

it was recovered, thereby the offence is committed.

3. In Crime No.588/16 a report was made by Syed Wasim Rajak

on 26.4.2016 that his motorcycle was stolen. Subsequently

when the applicant was arrested in Crime No.6/2016 on

investigation it reveals that the said motorcycle was stolen

along-with other co-accused and it was kept at the parking

place of the hospital and it was recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that initially

only on suspicion the applicant was arrested and no report

was made and the motorcycle which was alleged to have

been seized was not stolen by him and only certain

motorcycles were seized from parking place of the hospital

and the allegations have been attributed to the present

applicant. He further submits that in Crime No.186 of 2016

the seizure witnesses have not supported the case of

prosecution, therefore, it would show that the applicant has

been falsely implicated in both the cases and he may be

enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail.

6. Perused the case diary documents.

7. On memorandum, it reveals that as many 25 motorcycles

were stolen by the applicant and other accused and two

motorcycles were seized at the instance of the present

applicant from a parking place. The argument that the

seizure witnesses have not supported the case of

prosecution is completely misconceived and wrong

statements have been made. It appears that the seizure

witnesses Umesh Kumar and Santosh Kumar have not been

examined.

8. Considering the recovery of stolen motorcycles and the way

the offence has been committed, I am not inclined to enlarge

the applicant on ba