Trivendra Kunjam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 629 of 2020 • Trivendra Kunjam S/o Goverdhan Kunjam Aged About 26 Years By Caste - Gond, R/o Village Tarasgaon, Tahsil Charama, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kanker, District U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent _______________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. A.G.

__________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 25/06/2020

1. The Applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 455/2019 registered at Police Station Kanker, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 427 and 395 of Indian Penal Code.

2. According to case of the prosecution, it is alleged that present applicant and other co-accused persons entered at John Dear Showroom and caused damage to the property amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and injured the Manager of the Showroom and used filthy language. It is further alleged that they also looted one laptop from

complainant, thereafter, they fled away from spot. Matter was reported by the complainant and on the basis of the said, offence has been registered.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that prima facie, no case is made out against present applicant. Due to some dispute, a false and fabricated report has been lodged by the complainant. Therefore, it is prayed that applicant may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application.

5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

6. Taking into consideration the submissions put-forth on behalf of the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution and after going through the statements of the witnesses, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash