DEEPAK KUMAR RATRE Vs. STATE OF CHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Diary of Crime No. 8/2001 of P.S. Somani (Rajnandgaon) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the IPC perused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the three persons were named in the first information report and in the alleged dying declaration of the complainant Manoj. The said three persons were directed to be released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon on 30th January, 2001. The applicant who was not named in the first information report was subsequently arrested and made an application for his release on bail but the said application was rejected on 15-2-2001. Learned Court-below rejected the application mainly on the ground that the allegations against the present applicant that he had caused injuries to the victim in association with others.

(2.) FROM the records it appears that the present applicant repeated his application which was registered as bail case No. 78/2001. Learned Court-below (Smt. Maitrayee Mathur) rejected the application mainly on the ground that the order in favour of the other four was passed by the different Presiding Officer (Shri H.R. Agwan) and as the earlier application was rejected and there were no changed circumstances the applicant was not entitled to be released on bail. Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the persons who were named as assailants and were identified on the spot have been released on bail on 30th January, 2001 but the applicant who was neither named in the FIR nor in the dying declaration nor by any witness is languishing in jail, just for nothing. He submits that the approach of the Court-below is not only contrary to the law but is arbitrary, whimsical and capricious.

(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the State opposses the application. I have gone through the entire case diary. The first information report which was lodged by the complainant slates that Dinesh, Umesh and Uttam with some of their associates armed with stick, rod and sword made an attempt on him; he also referred to names of certain eye-witnesses who had witnessed the incident. Immediately after the report he was shifted to the hospital where his dying declaration was recorded. In the said dying declaration he stated that he could identify Uttam, Dinesh and Umesh. He did not make any allegation against the present applicant. The police during the course of investigation recorded statements of some eye-witnesses. The said eye-witnesses did not make any allegation against the present applicant. It is only in the memorandum of the co-accused that certain allegations have been made against the present applicant. Barring the statements contained in the memorandum of the co-accused, the case diary does not contain any other evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged crime.