Allowed

Smt. Chandrakali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jun 2023MCRCA/481/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the first anticipatory bail application filed by two applicants apprehending arrest in connection with a dispute involving counter-blast FIRs. The court held that no prima facie case under Section 458 IPC was made out.

What did the court decide?

Extension of benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC with a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety.

Smt. Chandrakali Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 481 of 2023

¶5

Smt. Chandrakali W/o Lekharam Mahilange, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Bandha, Police Station Pandaria, District: Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶6

Toran Singh Mahilange, S/o Lekharam Mahilange, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Bandha Police Station Pandaria, District: Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pandariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶10

--- Respondent

¶11

For Applicants : Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate. For State/ Respondent : Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahare, Panel Lawyer.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board

¶13

12/06/2023

¶14

This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of anticipatory bail, who have apprehended of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 79/2023, registered at Police Station– Pandariya, District Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 294,323,506 and 458/34 I.P.C.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.03.2022 at about 7.30 PM, Bhupesh Patre and Toran Singh were abusing each other in the meanwhile Sarojini came there with Dhaniram and started beating applicant Toran with stick subsequently Chandrakali also came to save him. On the basis of counter blast FIRs, FIR No. 80/2023 was registered by applicants against the complainant under Sections 294,323,506/34 IPC and FIR No. 79/2023 was registered by Sarojini Patre against the applicants for the offence under Sections 294,506,458 IPC.

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants and the complainants are neighbours and the ingredients of offence under Section 458 IPC are not attracted herein, the other offences are bailable in nature, both the parties have lodged the FIR against each others and there are no previous criminal antecedents against the applicants. He would further submit that counter blast FIR were lodged by both the parties against each other in the same police Station. He would further submit that from bare perusal of FIR, the applicants have not committed any act of lurking house-trespass or housebreaking by night after preparation for hurt or assault. He would further submits that applicant No.1 is a lady and the applicant No.2 is young body of 21 years, therefore, the applicants may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the anticipatory bail application submits that there is clear allegation against the applicants regarding commission of offence. Hence, it is prayed that the application for grant of anticipatory bail may be rejected.

¶19

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

¶20

From perusal of the case diary, material collected by the prosecution and the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC of the complainant, prima-faciea, offence under Section 458 IPC is not made out against the applicants, and also considering the allegation levelled against them, I am inclined to extend the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to the applicants.

¶21

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid offence, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail by the officer arresting on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/- each of them with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The Applicants shall also abide by the following

¶22

Page 3 of 3

¶23

conditions:-

¶24

(i) That the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the concerned police officer as and when required;

¶25

(ii) That the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat undue influence to the prosecution witnesses;

¶26

(iii) That the applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶27

Certified copy as per rules.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶30

Santosh

Smt. Chandrakali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chandrakali 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

Dhanraj Das Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushma Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jai Maa Laxmi Women Self Help Group Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Sharma Vs Ms Dipika Bhagat

Vijay Patre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rishabh Panikar Vs State of Chhattisgarh