NIRMAL KUMAR JHADI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of orders passed by the Special Judge, by which appellant's application for grant of bail has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant has been involved in the alleged commission of offence on the basis that some of the co-accused in their memorandum statement stated regarding appellant is recipient of regular supply of explosive substance. He would submit that however many witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. They would further submit that in these circumstance the prosecution case, prima-facie does not show any quantity explosive seized from the physical possession of the applicant or that in any particular case the applicant supplied explosive or involved any naxalite activity, at this stage the appellant may be granted bail.

(3.) As far as appellant Ramuram Nag is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that his involvement in the alleged commission of offence is based only on suspicion. He has not been named in the memorandum of other co-accused as he has involved in the alleged commission of offence.