1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MCRC No. 2023 of 2017

 Mohammad Jakir Husain @ Guddu, S/o Mohd.Jabir Husain,

Aged About 34 Years, R/o Hariunga Chowk, Bagaan Para,

Thana Nayatoll, District Paakud, Jharkhand.

---- Applicant

Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police

Station Kotwali, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

________________________________________________________

For Applicant in MCRC No.2023/17

: Shri Mateen Siddiqui,

Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State

: Shri Ashok Swarnkar, Panel

Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai

Order On Board

22.09.2017

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted some photocopy

regarding proof of age of applicant of the said photocopy as taken in

the record and made part of the record.

Perused the office note dated 18/09/17, as per office note the

co-accused has preferred any petition to enlarged him on bail.

Heard the matter finally.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that as the

facts submitted on behalf of the respondent that earlier at Nagar,

Police Station Paakud Distt. Paakud (Jharkhand) Crime No.

196/1992 has been registered under Section 393 & 302 of Indian

Penal Code on 04/09/1992. Learned counsel for the applicant would

2

submit that on perusal of the date of birth of the applicant has shown

in the document submitted to it appears that date of birth of the

applicant is 08/06/1989 with this at the time of matter registered

against the applicant. He was of 3 years age only, with this it

appeared that he may not involved in the said offence. Learned

counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is a

businessman, he came Raigarh to purchase hair waste available at

the barber shop, in course of hair cut for commercial use and he was

simply sitting at the spot with this offence under Section 399, 402 &

34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959, is

not attracted. The applicant is falsely implicated. Learned counsel for

the applicant would submit that the applicant was arrested on

02/09/2016 in connection with Crime No.56/2016.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that after

investigation police had filed charge-sheet against total 5 accused

persons and other co-accused had not preferred any petition to

enlarged them on bail, matter is presently pending before the First

Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) as Sessions Trial

No.151/2016. He is presently aged about 34 years, he may be

granted bail till trial.

4.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes

the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and would submit

that as per the facts surfaced in the case diary, the aforementioned

Crime No. has been registered against the applicant. Also as the

applicant and other co-accused were sitting together for making

preparation to commit dacoiti, the police searched them and

recovered one country made revolver, one empty cartridge of 315

3

bore, 1 live cartridge of 303 bore, one mobile and cash Rs.5500/-

during investigation, goes to show that applicant was the member of

assembly and assembled for preparation, to commit dacoity. Hence,

the instant MCRC may be dismissed.

5.

Perused the entire matter.

6.

There is nothing for the cross-check regarding the genuiness

of photocopy submitted on behalf applicant regarding the age of

applicant. If that age may be taken as correct, even then in the

present matter, police after arrest of the applicant shown the age of

the applicant as 34 years. If considering the dated birth as

08/06/1989 age of the applicant presently is about 24 years. Even

otherwise, if the aforementioned criminal matter registered prior to

the incident may be ignored, in the present matter. Looking to the

fact that one country made pistol, one empty cartridge, one live

cartridge was seized from the applicant. There was no lawful

authority