Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey decided by common order two anticipatory bail applications arising from the same crime. The court disposed of both applications favorably, directing the execution of personal bonds with standard terms.
Allow anticipatory bail applications; direct applicants to execute personal bonds of Rs. 50,000.
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. 38 of 2023
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Non-applicants
MCRCA No. 39 of 2023
---- Applicants
Versus
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant(s) – Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate (in MCRCA No.39/2023), Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate (in MCRCA No.38/2023) For State – Mr. Sushil Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate for Non-applicant No.1 in MCRCA No.38/2023/objector.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
03-03-2023
are being decided by this common order.
-2-
These applications have been filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.1419/2022 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Outpost Padamnabhpur Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) for offence punishable under Section 384, 447, 471, 506 and 34 of the IPC.
3 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel
-3-
for the complainant would oppose the applications. Mr. Mayank Chandrakar would submit that the applicants were not permitting the complainant to attend funeral ceremony of his father and when the complainant gave Rs.5,000/thereafter, he was permitted. He would further submit that earlier in the year 2012, Rs.7,000/- was taken from the complainant. He would further submit that conduct and act of the present applicants are not like a human being of an educated society and they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
5 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the case diary.
6 . From the documents annexed along with the present bail applications it appears that in the year 2011 complainant was married to a lady belonging to other caste and thereafter Rs.7,000/- was taken from him in the year 2012. On 07-09-2020 father of the complainant died and Rs. 5,000/- was again taken from the complainant. A complaint was made by the complainant before the police in the year 2020 itself and thereafter, a complaint case has been filed in the year 2022 where the order has been passed for registration of FIR for offence punishable under Section 384, 447, 471, 506, 34 of the IPC. In the present case only offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC is non-bailable, rest of the offences are bailable. Considering the fact that there was no demand of money from the present applicants and considering the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2012 and 2020 and further, considering the fact that the amount was taken as donation from the complainant, I am inclined to allow both these applications filed for grant of anticipatory bail.
-4-
The observation made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of applicants on the applications for grant of anticipatory bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by the observation made in the course of this order.
Sd/-
Aadil
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail applications filed by multiple applicants in connection with the same crime are maintainable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahendra Kumar Sinha
Krishna Sinha
Arun Sinha
Tekram Sinha
Bisat Ram Sinha
State of Chhattisgarh
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
