DHANESH NETAM Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 507/2006, registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 302, 201, 109, 294/34 of IPC.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 03/10/2006 at about 16:00 hours, Bunty @ Nagesh (since deceased) was having liquor in the premises of liquor shop of Jalampur. At that time, co-accused Uday Singh Dhruv came to that place and there was some altercation between them. In the said background, on an extortion made by the deceased, Uday Singh Dhruv assaulted the deceased with the help of a Katar. When the deceased ran away inside the room of the liquor shop, Uday Singh Dhruv chased him and gave beating in the shop also. Bunty was taken to the hospital, where he died on the same day. A report to this incident was lodged in the Police Station at about 17:30 hours on the same day by one Botu @ Sarju Satnami, who happens to be the eye-witness of the incident. The contents of the report would show that the entire allegations are against Uday Singh Dhruv and there are no allegations against these 2 accused persons. Later on, in the investigation, it comes that on the memorandum of applicant No. 1, the weapon of offence -Katar was seized. Applicant No. 1 is the brother of main accused- Uday Singh Dhruv. The evidence against applicant No. 2 is that he was exhorting the main accused, while he was assaulting the deceased. Such evidence is coming in the statement of witnesses - Shyam Patre and Govind.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly considering the circumstance that there are no allegations of marpeat against these applicants and their names are also not there in the FIR and no overt act has been attributed to these applicants in the FIR, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, these applicants should be enlarged on regular bail.