The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by an applicant in a repeat petition. The court refused bail as the allegations were non-compoundable, and the applicant failed to produce any legally admissible document of compromise.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
M.Cr.C.(A) NO. 1285 of 2015
----Applicant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Thana SHO Amleshwar Civil & District Durg (CG)
----Respondent
For Applicant : Shri S.K. Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Aditya Sharma, PL
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE CHANDRA BHUSHAN BAJPAI Order on Board
08/12/2015
2 . By filing this M.Cr.C.(A), the applicant had prayed for anticipatory bail in Crime No.10/2014, PS. Amleshwar, District Durg (CG) for the offence registered against him under Sections 363, 365, 420, 342 & 120-B of the IPC.
3 . This is a repeat anticipatory bail application. Earlier M.Cr.C.(A) No. 234/2015 was dismissed as withdrawn on 31st March, 2015 with liberty to file an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., if so advised. On behalf of the applicant, it is prayed that the parties have arrived in a compromise, which is a change of circumstance, hence, she be given anticipatory bail in the event of arrest.
4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition.
2
6 . As per order dated 31st March, 2015 in M.Cr.C.(A) No.234/2015, the petition filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as withdrawn as it was prayed that the applicant wants to file a regular bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the applicant is again praying for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. So far as arguments advanced in this behalf are concerned, looking to the offence registered against the applicant, the matter is not compoundable, even apart from this, the applicant had not filed any such legally admissible document for the same.
7 . On due consideration, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.
8 . Consequently, M.Cr.C.(A) No.1285/2015 is dismissed.
Sd/
(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai)
JUDGE
sunita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for anticipatory bail pursuant to Section 438 Cr.P.C. given that offences are compoundable and no legal document of compromise was submitted.
Whether the compromise alleged between parties constitutes a sufficient change of circumstances to grant anticipatory bail in a repeat application.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mamta Dadsena w/o Ashwani Dadsena
State of Chhattisgarh
Chandra Bhushan Bajpai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
