-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8390 of 2021
Sanju Vastrakar S/o Shri Shiv Vastrakar Aged About 28 Years R/o
Village Parsada Police Station- Sakri District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakri, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
21/12/2021
1. Applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with
Crime No.248/2020 registered at Police Station- Sakri, District-
Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201
of IPC.
2. Case of prosecution is that on 5.9.2020 in between 10:30 AM to
7:00 PM, some unknown persons have caused murder of Arman
Kaushik aged about 11 years and his mother-Sarita Kaushik, aged
about 30 years in their house by means of axe. Morgue was
reported by Rameshwar, husband of late Smt. Sarita. Based upon
-2-
which, crime was registered against unknown person. During
course of investigation, applicant was arrested on 7.9.2020.
3. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that applicant has
been falsely implicated in the crime only on suspicion of previous
enmity. He submits that there was relationship between applicant
and deceased. When marriage of applicant was fixed with some
other girl, deceased- Sarita came to house of applicant and tried to
make obstruction on marriage of applicant. It was only this dispute,
when brought to knowledge of investigating agency, applicant was
taken into custody and thereafter statement of witnesses have
been recorded. In statement of Sanskar Ahirwar, child aged about
11 years recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. made allegations
against applicant that he was last seen entering into the house of
deceased person. Except this, no other evidence against applicant
is collected by the investigating agency. He submits that
prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses till
October 2021 including witness Sanskar who was examined as
PW1 before trial Court on 7.7.2021. He submits that in his
statement, witness Sanskar has not supported case of prosecution.
In fact he has denied suggestion made to him with regard to
presence of the applicant near house of deceased persons or
dragging deceased Arman to his house. Witness Sanskar is the
only main witness as projected by prosecution in the charge sheet.
Even husband of late Sarita was examined before trial Court.
Except the relationship between applicant with Sarita as also some
dispute between late Sarita and applicant on the ground of making
-3-
attempt of breaking marriage of applicant, there is nothing against
applicant in his evidence also. Applicant could not be convicted
based on suspicion. Applicant is in jail since 7.9.2020 i.e. more
than one year, hence, he may be enlarged on regular bail
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes submissions of learned
counsel for the applicant and would submit that serious allegations
have been levelled against applicant. She submits that police,
during course of investigation, collected photographs showing
relationship between applicant and deceased Sarita. She submits
that witness Sanskar in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
has specifically stated that applicant took deceased Arman from
playground dragging to his house. At that time, applicant has
covered his face but when he was pulling Arman, face mask of
applicant opened and witness recognized him as Sanju (sanju
mama). It is thereafter the deceased persons i.e. Arman and Sarita
were found dead in their house. She submits that photographs and
statement of Sanskar Ahirwar are the main evidence against
applicant, hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. However, upon
asking to learned counsel for State with regard to submission of
learned counsel for applicant based on copy of deposition sheet
filed in this bail application particularly statement of Sanskar, she
submits that she cannot dispute the copy of deposition sheet
placed on record.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
-4-
nature of allegations, the fact that witness Sanskar who is stated to
be key witness to the case of prosecution has been examined
before trial Court and applicant was initially arrested only on the
basis of suspicion, his pre-trial detention, without commenting
anything on merits, I am inclined to allow the bail application.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the
applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon his furnishing a
bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum
to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:-
a) Applicant shall appear before the trial Court regularly on
each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.
b) Applicant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the
prosecution witnesses.
c) If the applicant is found involved in similar offence in the
future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of
Bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-/--/---/-/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
