Rahul Singh v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 959 of 2020 Rahul Singh S/o Late Arunendra Kumar Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Kotadol, Police Station Kotadol, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Kotadol, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 22.09.2020

1. The matter is heard through Video Conferencing.

2. The applicant has filed this First Bail Application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.11/2019, registered at Police Station: Kotadol, District: Korea (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

3. According to the case of prosecution, on 19.05.2019 at around 07:00 P.M, the complainant namely Vijay Dubey along with his friend namely Sandeep Mishra (Constable) went to the Bus Stand and they were waiting for their tiffin box, at that time, the present Applicant attacked the complainant with knife. Due to which the complainant sustained severe injuries on his head. On the basis

of said, the matter was reported by the complainant on the same day.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the present case. Virtually, the Applicant's mother lodged a report wherein, she stated that complainant after consuming liquor, misbehaved with her and knowing which the neighbors came to resolve their matter and due to intoxicated condition, the complainant fell down and received injuries, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State opposes the bail application.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, after going through the contents of FIR, medical report of the injured, injuries occurred, and other material available on record, without further commenting on other merits of the case, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Saurabh