Chattisgarh High CourtJhadu Das vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 March, 2017Page No.1


                                                                    NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            M.CR.C. No. 1543 of 2017
Jhadu Das, S/o. Baldev Das Manikpuri, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village
Umargaon, Police Station -Sihava, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ----Applicant
                                  Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Of Police
Station -Sihava, District -Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
                                                             ---- RespondentFor Applicant                    : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate
For Respondent/State             : Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Panel Lawyer


                    Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

                             Order On Board
22/03/20171.    This is the first bail application filed underSection 439of the Code of

      Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who

      has been arrested in connection with Crime No.109/2016, registered at

      Police Station - Sihava, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence

      punishable underSection 379of the Indian Penal Code and 4 (21) of

      Mining Act.2.    As per the prosecution case, on 18.11.2016 on information received

      that the applicant is in possession of stolen diamonds on a raid being

      made, 19 pieces of diamonds worth Rs.1.00 Lakh was recovered for

      which he was not able to produce any documents. Thereby the offence

      has been committed.3.    Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that only on the

      apprehension, the applicant has been arrested, no evidence is on

      record that he has stolen the goods and no one has made report. It is

      further submitted that charge-sheet in this case has been filed and the

      seizure has already been made and the applicant is in jail sincePage No.218.11.2016, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.4.   On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail

              application.5.   I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.6.   Perused the case diary and the documents. Considering the facts and

              circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation, charge-sheet in

              this case has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 18.11.2016

              and no further investigation is necessary, this Court is of the opinion

              that present is a fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on

              regular bail.7.   Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.is allowed.8.   It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a

              personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like

              sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance

              as and when directed.Certified copy as per rules.Sd/-(Goutam Bhaduri)
                                                                       Judge
Balram