Nitesh Kumar Kurre v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C.(A) No.44 of 2018 Nitesh Kumar Kurre son of Kartik Ram Kurre, aged about 19 years, Resident of Qu.No 535 Dipka Colony, Thana - Dipka, Tahsil Katghora, District-Korba (CG) -----Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Dipka, District-Korba (CG) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant :
Mr.Vikash Pandey, Advocate For Non-applicant :
Mr.Avinash Singh, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 22/03/2018 1.
Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.154/2017, registered at Police Station-Dipka, District-Korba (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 323, 506 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the applicant has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.
2.
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant and other co-accused persons entered into the house of the complainant and caused grievous hurt to him by which he suffered fracture on head and thereby committed the offence.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in crime in question. He would further submit that the
applicant has already lodged five complaints against the complainant to the police, however, the police has not taken any action against him.
4.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State would oppose the bail application and submit that the applicant and other co-accused persons entered into the house of the complainant and caused grievous hurt to him by which he suffered fracture on head. 5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6.
Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence and role of the present applicant, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 438 of the CrPC is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE B/-