Madhu Meshram v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 986 of 2020 Madhu Meshram Wife Of Shukdev Meshram Aged About 62 Years Resident Of Veer Shivaji Nagar, In Front Of Disha College, Ward No. 23, Raipur, Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, DistrictRaipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 21.09.2020
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 she is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.44/2020, registered at Police Station: Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 34, 392, 427 & 506 of IPC.
3. In this case, there are total 04 accused persons. According to the case of prosecution, one Rishi Sharma lodged a report to the Police Station, alleging therein that, on 26.05.2020, he along with Mahendra Singhaniya and Manish Gupta were going in car bearing registration No. CG 04 MG 9600, at that time, near
Crustgreen the Applicant along with Dilip Tandi and Rajeev Kshatri came there and started abusing the complainant and looted Rs.3,000/- from the complainant. On the basis of said, offence has been registered.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the present case. Virtually, the loot was committed by one of the co-accused and the present Applicant is 62 years old person. He submits that there is no direct allegations against the present Applicant regarding the commission of loot, 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, particularly considering the fact that there is no direct allegations against the present Applicant and the present Applicant is old person aged about 62 years, without further commenting on other merits of the case, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case for grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
9. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting him and he shall abide by all the following terms and conditions:- I.
That the accused/applicant shall made herself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required;
II.
The accused/applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
III.
The accused/applicant shall not act, in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and IV.
The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Saurabh