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 0, Cited by 14]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Chirasree Sengupta And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh 38 Wps/4200/2012 ... on 18 May, 2018

Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

                                                                               NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               MCRCA No. 133 of 2018

     1. Smt. Chirasree Sengupta W/o Utpal Sengupta Aged About 31 Years R/o 233
        Phase Ii Getanjali City, Behind S. E. C. L. Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur
        Working As ( Director) Of Sahara Samay Web Portal, Registered Under M. S.
        M. E. Delhi, Delhi

     2. Vijay Kumar Sharma S/o Late S. Krishna Aged About 49 Years R/o 177/10,
        Sindhi Toptdara, Ajmer, District Ajmer, Rajsthan, District : Ajmer, Rajasthan

     3. Manish Shukla S/o R. B. Shukla Aged About 36 Years R/o Sarswati Nagar,
        Ward No. 4 Pendra Road P. S. Gourella, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh,
        District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

     4. Utpal Sengupta S/o Uttam Sengupta Aged About 31 Years R/o 233 Phase Ii
        Getanjali City, Behind S. E. C. L. Bilaspur P. S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur
        Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                        Versus

        State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tarbahar
        Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                     ---- Respondent

For Applicants : Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate For State : Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocates For Objector : Shri Pragalbh Sharma with Ms. Neha Gupta, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 18/05/2018 Learned counsel for the applicants has placed before this Court various orders passed in CrMP No.917/2017. He submits that the interim order passed on 27/02/2018, was not continued on subsequent dates. Therefore, the applicants are apprehending that now, they are likely to be arrested.

2. Whether the interim order is continuing or not, it would not be proper for this Court to comment upon. Considering that there was already an interim order passed in favour of the applicants / petitioners in CrMP No.917/2017, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application at this stage. This bail application is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

( Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ) Judge Deepti