Allowed

Sundresh Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Apr 2022MCRCA/87/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to two applicants apprehending arrest in a case involving threats to kill a doctor. The Court noted the lack of antecedents and direct evidence against them as grounds for allowing bail with personal bonds.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety for the same sum.

Sundresh Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 87 of 2022

¶5

Sundresh Shrivastava, S/o M.P. Shrivastava, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Vivekanand Nagar, Nandini Mines, Ahiwara, District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station-In-Charge, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent

¶8

And

¶9

MCRCA No. 88 of 2022

¶10

• Devesh Chandel, S/o Anil Singh Chandel, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Panchayat Tharrod, Ward No. 7, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

¶11

Versus

¶12

• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station-In-Charge, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent

¶13

For Applicants : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava along with Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava and Mr. Soumya Rai, Adv.

¶14

For Respondent/State : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. A.G.

¶15

¶16

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

19.04.2022

¶19

As both MCRCAs arise out of same crime number, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

¶20

Applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed by the applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 245/2021 registered at Police Station-Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 307 & 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms act, 1959 and Section 3 of Medical Service Institute Protection Act.

¶21

The prosecution story, in brief is that, on the date of incident applicants entered the hospital and forcefully dragged the doctor along with them and, thereafter they also threatened to kill all of them at the gun point. Based on this, offence was registered against the applicants.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the present applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no direct evidence against the applicants to connect them with the aforesaid offence. He next added that there is no antecedent against the applicants and the FIR has been registered against unknown persons, therefore, the present applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶23

On the other hand, counsel for the State however opposes the application for anticipatory bail.

¶24

After hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular considering the fact that there is no antecedent against the applicants, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with aforesaid crime number, they

¶25

¶26

shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/ investigating officer or the Court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions:

¶27

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation/medical examination before the concerned investigating officer as and when required.

¶28

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶29

(iii) that the applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶30

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶31

Sd/(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶32

Ruchi

Sundresh Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundresh Shrivastava 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

Lalit Chandra Nahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonkeliya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gendlal Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Wahid Meman Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Punit Prakash @ Dhamendra Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devesh Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh