Chattisgarh High Court
Kamlesh Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 72 of 2022
1. Kamlesh Verma S/o Basant Verma Aged About 23 Years
2. Gaindsingh S/o Amarsingh Gond, Aged About 28 Years
3. Manoj Yadav S/o Padum Yadav Aged About 22 Years
All are R/o Village Bazaar Atariya, P.S. And Tehsil Khairagarh,
District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Khairagarh,
District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Applicant Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Alok Nigam, Government Advocate SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 12/4/2022
1. Heard.
2. This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.11/2022 registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 323,506, 452, 34 of the IPC.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants seeks 2 permission of the Court to withdraw the bail application filed on behalf of applicants 1 & 2.
4. Permission granted.
5. In view of the above, the bail application filed on behalf of applicant No1. Kamlesh Verma and applicant No.2 Gaindsingh, is dismissed as withdrawn.
6. Now, this Court shall consider the application filed on behalf of applicant No.3 Manoj Yadav.
7. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant lodged a written report in the Police Station that on 7.1.2022, the applicant and other co-accused entered in his house and took the items of tobacco from his shop and did not give him money. When the complainant demanded money, they abused and assaulted the complainant with hands and fists.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The ingredients of Section 452 of the IPC are missing in the present case as there was no preparation. The applicant is aged about 22 years and has no previous criminal antecedents.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. On being asked about the criminal antecedents of the applicant, learned counsel fairly submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant.
10. Having considered the nature of dispute and also considering 3 the age of the present applicant and that he has no previous criminal antecedents and further that presently, the applicant is on interim bail and he has not misused the liberty granted to him, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
11. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of applicant No.3 Manoj Yadav is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions:-
(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so required,
(b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer,
(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,
(d) after filing of the charge sheet, he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial,
(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.
Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Shyna