Citation : 2002 Local Law (CG) 122
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Monday allowed bail to an accused in a nearly two-decade-old murder case, finding the available evidence thin and primarily based on confessions and a few recovered personal items. Chief Justice K.H.N. Kuranga read the order after hearing counsel for both sides and concluded that the matter was suitable for enlargement on bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The accused one of four named in Crime No. 3 of 2002 registered at Regakhar Police Station faces charges under Section 302 (murder) and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution case as recorded by the court, the victim, identified as Tursa Bai, was allegedly assaulted and killed during the night of 17–18 July 2002. The body was said to have been buried near a nala and later removed and burned.
Investigating officers recovered broken bangles and one chappal near the spot where the body was allegedly buried. The prosecution also relied on an extra-judicial confession attributed to the applicant and a complaint and statement made by a co-accused, Anjilal, who reportedly alleged that the applicant had confessed the crime to him.
The defence argued the confessions could not be relied upon, and that the recovered items have not been properly identified by witnesses. The High Court echoed those concerns, noting that beyond the applicant’s purported confession, the co-accused’s statement and the recovery of small items, there was little other material on the record to firmly tie the accused to the offence.
For these reasons, the court allowed bail. The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹5,000 with two sureties of like amount to ensure his appearance before the trial court as and when required. The order also records that parties are entitled to certified copies.
One important detail in the court’s written order requires attention: the complaint by the co-accused, Anjilal, is recorded as having been filed on 2 February 2002 with the applicant’s arrest on 4 February 2002 dates that precede the alleged crime in July 2002. The order, as provided, therefore contains an internal inconsistency in dates that could be a clerical error or a transcription mistake. The discrepancy is noted here as it may be material to the case record and should be clarified on the official docket or by reference to the trial-court files.
The High Court’s decision to grant bail does not resolve the underlying criminal charges. It releases the accused from custody subject to the bond conditions while the trial continues. The court’s move reflects the balancing act courts often perform: weighing the strength of the prosecution’s material against the accused’s right to liberty, particularly where the evidence appears limited or primarily testimonial.
Case Details : Misc. Cr. Case No. 1334 of 2002 (B), Suresh Pawar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (01.10.2002)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. Aran Kochar, Advocate For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. Gautam Bhaduri, G.A.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 201; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 302; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 34
======
आपराधिक – जमानत प्रदान – अपराध भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 (IPC) की धारा 302 तथा 201 सहपठित धारा 34 के अंतर्गत दंडनीय है।
निर्णय में कहा गया कि इस मामले में पुलिस और सह-अभियुक्त के समक्ष किया गया स्वीकारोक्ति बयान भरोसेमंद नहीं माना जा सकता। पुलिस ने ऐसा कोई ठोस साक्ष्य भी एकत्र नहीं किया जिससे यह सिद्ध हो सके कि मृतका के शव को जिस स्थान पर दफनाया गया था, वहां से बरामद चूड़ियों के टुकड़े और चप्पल वास्तव में उसी की थीं, क्योंकि इन वस्तुओं की पहचान किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा नहीं की गई।
इन परिस्थितियों को ध्यान में रखते हुए न्यायालय ने यह माना कि अभियुक्त को जमानत देने का यह उचित मामला है।
जमानत प्रदान की गई — आवेदन स्वीकृत।
