SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 749 of 2022  Swadhin Nag Choudhari S/o Late Shri Madhushudan Nag Aged About 42 Years R/o H/743-A, Railway Construction Colony, Torwa, Police - Station - Tarbahar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant Versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Ofcer, Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Shri Mahendra Dubey, Adv.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Panel Lawyer SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Advocates:
['MAHENDRA DUBEY', '', 'SHISHIR DIXIT', 'A G', '', 'PARAS MANI SHRIWAS COMPL /OBJ', 'Vishvanath Prasad Shrivas']

Order On Board

12/8/2022 1. Heard.

2. This is an application fled 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.84/2022 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (CG) for the ofence punishable under Section 354-D of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the complainant lodged an FIR stating in it that she is employed in Cent Bank, Bilaspur. The present applicant continuously following her when she was on the way to bank, tried to talk to her in vulgar language and in an indecent manner and also passed comments against her dignity, based upon which, the aforesaid ofence has been registered.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is next submitted that the applicant had earlier made a complaint about fraud and cheating by the Cent Bank, Bilaspur, therefore, the false FIR has been registered against him. It is next submitted that the applicant and the complainant were in relationship since 2015 in support of which the photocopies of whatsup chat has also been fled. The complainant has earlier fled similar nature of ofence against the applicant in diferent police stations in crime number 374 of 2019 under Section 354, 354(d) of the IPC which was registered at Police Station – Tarbhar in which the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail. Hence, learned counsel prays for releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the nature of accusation, particularly considering the defence advanced by the applicant and the whatsup messaged, without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to extend the beneft of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the applicant.

7. Accordingly, the bail application 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 Rs25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting ofcer on the following conditions:-

(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the concerned police ofcer 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 ofcere (c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious triale (d) after fling of the charge sheet, he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the triale (e) he shall not involve himself in any ofence of similar nature in future.

(f) he shall not tried to contact with the prosecutrix in any manner.

Certifed copy as per rules.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top