Dismissed

Smt. Aruna Kurrey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Apr 2016MCRCA/314/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by Smt. Aruna Kurrey. The court held that the gravity of the offence involving manipulation of government funds and the active involvement of the applicant's husband made custodial interrogation essential, precluding the application of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed; she was not granted benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Smt. Aruna Kurrey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

Page No.1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.CR.C.(A) No. 314 of 2016

¶5

Smt. Aruna Kurrey, W/o. Peelaram Kurrey, aged about 38 years, by caste-Satnami, R/o. Village-Chhindauli, Tahsil – Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶6

----Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, P.S. - Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Dy.G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board

¶12

05/04/2016

¶13

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.65/2016, registered at Police Station- Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.), for offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471/34, 409, 477, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, in the year 2012-13, under Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Rs.7,50,000/- was sanctioned for construction of boundary wall at Government Middle School, Chhindauli and the construction agency was gram panchayat, Chhindauli. It is alleged that Rs.3,75,000/- was paid as an advance and after part construction of boundary wall when it was evaluated by the Sub-engineer, it was valued at Rs.1,05,688/-, however, it was manipulated and make it as Rs.4,05,688/-. Thereby the forgery is committed.

¶15

Page No.2

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the work was done in the year 2012-13 and after new Sarpanch took over, such allegations have been levelled. He further submits that when the cheques were being signed by the Secretary, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, it was also monitored by the Chief Executive Officer, therefore, it can not be stated that the applicant has misappropriated the amount. He further submits that the applicant has served with the notice under Section 92 for recovery of Rs.2,75,000/- and the reply is still awaited, therefore, he prays that the applicant may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶17

Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

¶18

Perused the case diary. The case diary also contains the valuation report wherein it is alleged that 1 has been made as 4, thereby the Rs.1,05,688/- is made as Rs. 4,05,688/-. Considering the way the offence has been committed and the applicant's husband was actively involved and certain cheques were issued in his name it is not a case, where the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be extended as it can not be stated that custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be required. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶19

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

¶20

Sd/(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶21

Balram

Smt. Aruna Kurrey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Aruna Kurrey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sadhana Nivsarkar Vs Registrar Of Companies

Ram Kumar and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Salma and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gokul Vs Prabhu Ram

Pradeep Shukla Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jodhan Ram and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh