High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/4188/2016dismissed

Smt. Nisha v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-08-17Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4188 of 2016 • Smt. Nisha W/o Mahendra Das Aged About 48 Years Caste Panika, R/o Kotmarra, P.S. Pasan, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Chowki Morga, Police Station Bango, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr.Shivang Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Anupam Dubey, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 17.08.2016

1. This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 26 of 2016 registered at Police Chowki Morga, P.S. Bango, Distt. Korba (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 368, 420, 370/34 of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, one Sukwara Bai was suffering with ailment and she resorted to witch-craft. She met one Rajesh, thereafter she was administered some medicine by witch craft remedies. Subsequently she was advised to go to Allahabad. While she was going, on the way at Pendra station she met the present applicant and she also accompanied her. After getting down at Allahabad, they went to a place and subsequently went to Agra wherein the victim was sold to one Anil Gupta for Rs.13,000/-.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the entire allegations have been attributed to accused Rajesh Goswami and not against this applicant. He submits that co-

accused Keshwar has been enlarged in M.Cr.C.No. 4172 of 2016 on 29.07.2016 and the allegation against the present applicant is also similar, therefore, she may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail.

5. Perused the case diary and the statement of Sukwara Bai. It shows that the applicant alongwith other lady joined the victim at Pendra station and accompanied her alongwith Rajesh and thereafter they stayed at a house of one Shambhu at Allahabad.

6. Considering the role payed by the present applicant, it cannot be said that the role of the present applicant is entirely similar to that of co-accused who has been enlarged on bail. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o