Chandrashekhar @ Shekhar Tandekar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 3562 of 2016

1. Chandrashekhar @ Shekhar Tandekar, S/o. Late Shri Krishnaram Tandekar, aged about 30 years, R/o. Bamhni Tola, Tahsil/District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ----Applicant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station - Lalbag, District - Rajnandgaon (wrongly typed as public prosecutor (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Shukla, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 12/07/2016 1.

This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.65/2016, registered at Police Station - Lalbag, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 456, 294, 323, 427, 506 (Part-II) of Indian Penal Code.

2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.03.2016 a report was lodged by the complainant Ravindra Kumar alleging that the applicant entered into the house of the complainant, abused and assaulted him by hand and fists and also damaged the motor cycle. Thereby the offence has been committed.

Page No.2 3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that charge-sheet in this case has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 03.03.2016 and no further evidence is required in this case, therefore, the counsel prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

5.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6.

Perused case diary and the order of the Court below, wherein it shows that one crime under Section 498A of I.P.C and another crime bearing No.108-42/2013 for the offence under Section 323, 294, 506, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and 25 of Arms Act were registered.

7.

On being query made, the counsel is not able to satisfy the query of the Court as to what happened in earlier pending cases. In view of the above and considering the past antecedents of the applicant, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram