Ugra Sen Narange v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C.(A) No. 9 of 2016

1. Ugra Sen Narange, S/o. Shri Ghanshyam Narange, aged about 35 years, R/o. Atal Awas Jawahar Nagar, Qr.No.1, Block No.12, Behind College Bhilai, P.S.-Jamul, District-Durg (C.G.) ----Applicant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through : Police Station- Jamul, District - Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 08/03/2016 1.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.427/2015 registered at Police Station- Jamul, District - Durg (C.G.), for offence punishable under Section 323, 294, 506, 326, 36 of Indian Penal Code, the applicant has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail. 2.

As per the prosecution case, on 14.09.2015, the applicant along-with other co-accused has caused assault to one Krishna Sah and report was made by Satyen Sah, the brother of the victim. The victim was hospitalized on 14.09.2015 to 30.09.2015. Thereby the offence has been committed.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, earlier to that one of the family member of the applicant was victim of rape and

Page No.2 thereafter, when the report was made, the complainant used to exert pressure on the family of the applicant to compromise the case and having not been done, the report was made. He further submits that against the injured, different cases under IPC were registered. He would further submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and therefore, he prays that the applicant may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

4.

Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

5.

Perused the case diary and the statement of the injured. The injured was hospitalized on 14.09.2015 to 30.09.2015, which includes fracture. Taking into nature of the injury and the documents of this case, it is not case where the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be extended. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram