← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRCA/613/2015dismissed

Smt. Ragni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-07-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No.613 of 2015 Smt. Ragni W/o Ashok Mishra Aged About 47 years R/o Sahaspur Lohara, Police Station & Tahsil- Sahaspurlohara, Civil And Revenue DistrictKabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer, Police Station- Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner :

Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Manish Nigam, Panel Lawyer Order On Board 29/07/2015 Heard.

2.

The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.81/2015, registered at Police Station-Sahaspur Lohara District Kabirdham for alleged commission of offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC. 3.

This is second application for grant of bail. First application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move application for grant of regular bail before the Court below. Now, the applicant has filed second application by submitting that the applicant's case may be considered on merits. 4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that allegations of harassment and cruelty against the applicant are exaggerated, false and afterthought. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant has no role to play in the alleged cruelty against the complainant and allegations are against the other accused. He lastly submits that the applicant is a lady, therefore, she may be granted anticipatory bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the applicant withdrew her first application with liberty to move application for grant of regular bail before the Court below, therefore, second application is not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that the allegations are mostly against the present applicant.

6.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7.

Accordingly, the application is rejected.

Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J U D G E Tumane