Kanti Singh Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C.(A) No. 357 /2021 Kanti Singh Thakur, S/o. Leelagar Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o. Lachchhanpur Jhirna Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh At Present R/o. Himalaya House Kamal Vihar Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Wrongly mentioned as Tahsil & District Bilaspur in the order sheet) ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 04.08.2021 1.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.36/2021 registered at Police Station- Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, the applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. 2.

As per the prosecution case, a report was made by Harishankar Dahariya that in order to provide job, the applicant in connivance with Kamal Sonwani has demanded Rs.5 Lac and out of which Rs.2 Lac paid and this applicant Kanti Singh was introduced as senior officer in the Sakri Battalion whereby an amount of Rs.2 Lac was given to Kamal Sonwani.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this applicant has not received any amount, the entire money was given to Kamal Sonwani and when the amount called back, a cheque was given by

Kamal Sonwani which was bounced and thereafter, the report was made. Therefore only by saying that the applicant is involved, no offence is made out; therefore, the applicant may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and he read out the statement of Harishankar Dahariya.

5.

Perused the statement of Harishankar Dahariya. Taking into such fact that this applicant was projected himself as senior officer and he insisted for payment for which the payment was given to Kamal Sonwani. Therefore to reach to the actual culprit custodial interrogation may be required. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. Ashok Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge