Chattisgarh High Court
Basant Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 August, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 347 of 2022
Basant Yadav S/o Shri Padumnath Aged About 44 Years By Caste
Mahakul, R/o Village Kumharbahar, Police Station Farsabahar,
District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Applicant Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Panel Lawyer SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 8/8/2022
1. Heard.
2. This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.4/2022 registered at Police Station Farsabahar, District Jashpur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 427, 457 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the husband of the complainant has left the complainant 15 years ago. On 31.12.2021, in the evening, the applicant entered into the house of the complainant and beat her by using wooden bamboo stick and also broke the household goods. The complainant, in her 2 statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., stated that the applicant abused her alleging that she is practicing black-magic. Hence, the offence has been registered.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The husband of the complainant has left the complainant 15-20 years ago. The father of the applicant has born the expenses of the marriage of the three children of the complainant in the absence of her husband. When the husband of the complainant returned, the applicant demanded the money spent in the marriage, on which, the complainant has made a false complaint against him. He prays for releasing the applicant on anticpatory bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of accusation, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to the applicant.
7. The bail application is dismissed. However, it is observed that in the event, the applicant surrenders and applies for regular bail, the Sessions Court shall consider his case expeditiously, preferably on the same day.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna