The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The applicant, accused of outrage of modesty, argued false implication and prior enmity. The court noted pending harassment proceedings against the applicant's mother but observed the two-day FIR delay was not inordinate.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC(A) No. 433 of 2016
Umend Ram Tondon S/o. Shri Hulas Ram Tondon, aged about 29 years, R/o. Khandwa ( correct place is Khandoba) Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil-Kota, District-Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Ratanpur District Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Applicant :- Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State :- Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board
17/06/2016
been made. He further submits that the incident happened on 27.03.2016 and the report was made on 29.03.2016 and the two days delay has not been explained, therefore, the applicant may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.
(Goutam Bhaduri)
JUDGE
Santosh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. where prior proceedings exist under Sections 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C. regarding domestic dispute between parties.
Whether the two-day delay in lodging the FIR regarding the lodging of report constitutes inordinate delay warranting anticipatory bail.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Umend Ram Tondon
State of Chhattisgarh
Goutam Bhaduri
Santosh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
