Deepak Rajput v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 273 of 2020 • Deepak Rajput S/o Shri Santosh Singh Rajput Aged About 19 Years R/o. Infront Of Rahul Uday School, House Of J.P. Kushwaha, Kushalpur, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., ---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., ---- Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 23-06-2020 Heard.

1.

The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 29 of 2020 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence under Sections 294, 323, 324, 327, 506-B, 147, 149, 342, 329 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2.

Case of the prosecution is that the applicant and other coaccused assaulted and caused grievous hurt to victim Ravi Thakur when Ravi Thakur expressed his inability to provide liquor.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that there is no specific allegation against him, therefore, mere presence is not sufficient to involve him, therefore, in these circumstances, he may be protected by anticipatory bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail would submit that not only that the injury report contains fracture and the victim had to be operated and was admitted in hospital for ten days. He would further submit that the victim in his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and his mother in FIR have clearly stated involvement of number of persons including the present applicant in the assault. 5.

Taking into consideration the material against the applicant, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 6.

Accordingly, the application is liable to be and is hereby rejected.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) J U D G E Raju