High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRCA/31/2020allowed

Smt. Shakuntala Devi Ruprela v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2020-06-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR • Smt. Shakuntala Devi Ruprela W/o Late Meghraj Ruprela, Aged About 67 Years, R/o H.No. H-7, Greenland Colony, Vishal Nagar, Teshil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Gobra Navapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent MCRCA No. 31 of 2020 • Smt. Shakuntala Devi Ruprela W/o Late Meghraj Ruprela Aged About 67 Years R/o H. No. H-7, Greenland Colony, Vishal Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Golbazar, thana Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicants Mr. BP Sharma, Advocate For Respondent /State Ms. Veena Nair, Dy. AG For Objector Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate Proceedings through Video Conferencing SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 16/6/2020

1. Heard.

2. Since both the bail applications under Section 438 of CrPC have been filed by the same applicant Smt. Shakuntala Devi Ruprela, they are being disposed of by this common order. MCRCA No.62 of 2020

3. This is an application filed by the applicant apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.286 of 2019, registered at Police Station Gobra Navapara, Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC. MCRCA No.31 of 2020

4. This is an application filed by the applicant apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.285 of 2019, registered at Police Station Golbazar Thana, Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC.

5. The applicant is the widow of one Meghraj Rupela. Meghraj Rupela died on 18.10.2018, where-after, she moved an application for mutation of her name along with the names of her two sons in the revenue records without disclosing that the complainants being the daughter and son of Meghraj Rupela are also the legal heirs.

6. Indisputably, the property has not yet been sold out and it is at the stage of carrying out mutation in the revenue records.

7. Considering the nature of allegations and for the fact that the

applicant is a lady, aged about 67 years, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case to extend the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.PC to the applicant.

8. Accordingly, the applications are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting OfÏcer with the following conditions :- (i) she shall make herself available for interrogation by a Police OfÏcer as and when required;

(ii) she 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 for disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police OfÏcer.

9. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Shyna