The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant, accused of rape and criminal force, argued false implication. The court rejected the plea, finding no ground for bail due to prompt FIR lodging and lack of case for bail.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected.
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
MCRCA No. 272 of 2019
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant – Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State – Shri Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board
12-07-2019
3 . Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the application submitting that according to the statement given by the prosecutrix and prompt lodging of the FIR, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.
attempt to assault the prosecutrix sexually on 10-01-2019. Thereafter, the
-2-
dispute was pacified. On 26-01-2019 when the prosecutrix was in her house with her children, this applicant committed house trespass and then by using physical force committed offence of rape with her. The prosecutrix gave intimation of this incident to her husband and thereafter the FIR has been lodged on the same day.
the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge
Aadil
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant apprehending arrest in a case for rape and criminal force.
Whether the false implication of the applicant justifies the grant of anticipatory bail despite the prosecution's evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anuj Kumar Rajwade
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
