Dismissed

Divyendra Singh Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Aug 2022MCRCA/338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the applicant's application under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail. The court noted the victim's grievous injuries, her statement implicating the applicant, and CCTV footage showing the applicant at the crime scene, stating he was not inclined to allow the application.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC dismissed.

Divyendra Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCrC(A) No. 338 of 2022

¶4

Divyendra Singh Rajput S/o Late Dhansingh Rajput Aged About 31 Years R/o Saras Vihar Phase 1, Raipura , Police Station D.D. Nagar Raipur (C.G.).

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶8

		---- Respondent
For Applicant	-	Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate alongwith
		Shri Vikas Bajpai and Ashutosh Biswas
		Advocates
For Respondent / State	-	Shri Sameer Urao, G.A.,
For Objector	-	Shri Ramsajivan alongwith
		Shri Akhtar Hussain Advocate.

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶10

Order on Board

¶11

05/08/2022

¶12

This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 44/2022 registered in Police Station - D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.

¶13

Prosecution story in brief is that on 28.01.2022 one Chetan Kumar Dewangan, S/o. Late Mohanlal Dewangan lodged a report with Police Station D.D. Nagar to the effect that his mother Smt. Shobha Rajput is residing alone at Vrindavan Colony, Changorabhata, Raipur where the applicant reached on 27-01-2022 at about 21:30 and with intention to eliminate her caused grevious injury with sharp edged weapon and

¶14

-2-

¶15

consequently she got admitted at Jagnnath Hospital. That, on query it borne out that the applicant who is the son of his mother's second husband, with intention to cause death assaulted her due to old dispute. The informant/Chetan Kumar Dewangan is carrying out his job at Bilaspur, who was informed by her mother telephonically and after receiving information he rushed to Jagnnath Hospital and came to know that the victim was assaulted from behind suddenly on her head and in the process of rescue she sustained injuries on her hands. Thereafter, on the complaint of her son, offence U/s 307 of IPC came to be registered and investigation launched against the applicant.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the relatiohship between the applicant and victim is of step son and mother. There is no dispute between with regard to property of the father of the applicant and husband of the victim. It is all possibility that applicant has falsely implicated because the wife of the applicant has lodged report under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the victim and the victim has also threatned her to take back the earlier report and documents of FIR as well as the complaint made by the wife of the present applicant is also placed on record. He further submits that there is no criminal antecendent, the applicant is well educated person and could have not done that crime. Therefore, he may be relased on bail.

¶17

On the other hand State Counsel submits that investigation is going on and from the injury it appears that the applicant has committed the crime, the categorically statement of the victim directly indicates that it is the applicant who was assaulted from behind to the victim because of which she sustainted fracture on parietal region as well as certain injury in the hand. In CCTV footage of the crime scene, the applicant

¶18

-3-

¶19

was seen during the commission of the crime. Therefore, he may not be release on bail.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the objector submits that he has filed certain document of the treatment of the victim and photographs which goes to show that she was badly assaulted on which she sustained fracture and grevious injuries.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that at this stage in the CCTV footage, identity of the applicant cannot be established.

¶22

In reply to this Counsel for the state submits that investigation is going on and further evidence is yet to be collected.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶24

Having regard to the circumstances of the case and statement of Injured Shobha Rajput and the grevious injuries sustained by her, and all the other material evidence collected including the statement made by the counsel for the State that applicant is seen in the CCTV footage. I am not inclined to allow this application.

¶25

Accordingly, this application is dissmissed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶28

Ashish

Divyendra Singh Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divyendra Singh Rajput 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bukki @ Tunni Dhanraj Salunke Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Soni @ Sonu Pardhi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gangaram Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hinchharam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Rajbar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pallavi Kurre @ Pallavi Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh