Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Priya Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2016

                                                                        Page No.1

                                                                       NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          CR.M.P. No. 1008 of 2016

     1. Smt. Priya Sharma, W/o. Sanjeet Sharma, D/o. M.K. Sharma, aged
        about 24 years, R/o. Professor Colony, Sector-3, Raipur, Tahsil and
        District - Raipur (C.G.)

                                                                  ---- Petitioner

                                    Versus

     1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Station House Officer, Police
        Station - D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).

     2. Sanjeet Sharma, S/o. Shri Basant Tripathi, aged about 27 years,

     3. Basant Tripathi, aged about 58 years, S/o. Shri S.P. Tripathi,

     4. Smt. Roshni Tripathi, W/o. Shri Basant Tripathi, aged about 50
        years,

        No.2 to 4 are R/o. Shikshak Colony, Near Gayatri Convent School,
        Daganiya, Raipur, Tahsil & District - Raipur (C.G.)

     5. Smt. Nilima Sharma, aged about 26 years, W/o. Shri Mayank
        Pandey, resident of C/o. Shrikant Pandey, Mathura - 44, Krishna
        Vihar Colony, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.)
                                                              ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 16/09/2016

1. Heard on petition under Section 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, which is an application to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents No.2 to 5 by an order dated 08.08.2016, by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.). Page No.2

2. Perusal of the order dated 08.08.2016 would show that anticipatory bail was granted to the respondents No.2 to 5 by the Court of Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur.

3. The wording of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. would show that High Court or Sessions Court may cancel the bail, therefore, in all propriety when the bail has been granted by the Sessions Court, re- appreciation of fact by the High Court would amount to exercising the appellate jurisdiction.

4. Accordingly, the petition under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with a liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail before the competent Court, which has granted bail.

5. With such observation, the petition stands disposed off.

Sd/-

(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram