Chattisgarh High Court
Nasiruddin vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 913 of 2022
Nasiruddin S/o Kutubuddin Aged About 74 Years R/o Maudhapara P.S.
Maudhapara, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ganj District - Raipur
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
__________________________________________________ For Applicant - Shri Arvind Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent/State - Shri Chitendra Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Justice Shri N.K. Chandravanshi Order on Board 22-07-2022
1. Heard.
2. The applicant has preferred this bail application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.140/2022, registered at Police Station Ganj, District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 411, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, is that at about 02-04 a.m. on 29/5/2022, some unknown persons have stolen ten meter copper wire of A.C. of government accommodation situated at Devendra Nagar, Raipur. It was also revealed that such copper wire of A.C. has also been stolen from some other houses, hence, present 2 FIR was lodged against unknown persons. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Rajkumar Verma has stolen copper wire which he has sold in the kabadi shop of applicant and alleged copper wire was seized on the basis of memorandum of co-accused Raju Mahanand.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that allegation against the applicant is only for the offence under Section 411 of IPC. Alleged copper wire has not been seized from the possession of the applicant. Applicant is about 74 years old age person, hence, it is prayed that he may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the bail application. It is further submitted that stolen copper wire has been seized from co-accused Raju Mahanand, who is a worker in kabadi shop of applicant. Moreover, there are two criminal antecedents registered against the applicant; one is for the offence under Sections 406, 411 of the IPC and another under Section 41(1-4) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 379 of IPC, hence, applicant is not entitled to be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.
6. Considered the submission and perused the case diary.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the fact that alleged shop from where copper wire 3 was seized is said to be of applicant and also considering the previous criminal antecedents of applicant, I do not feel inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
8. Accordingly, present anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
SD/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi) Judge Amardeep