Tarun Kaushik v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 672 of 2015 Tarun Kaushik S/o Bisahu Ram Kaushik Aged About 30 years R/o Arya Colony Marg, Tifra, Opp. - Store Room Of Electricity Office Tifra, Sirggitty, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through : S.H.O. Sirggitty, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant - Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State - Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer Order On Board 05/08/2015 Heard.
1.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.701/15 registered at police station - Sirggitty, Bilaspur for alleged commission of offence under Section 448, 354, 506-B,353 of IPC.
2.
Case of the prosecution is that the applicant dragged the prosecutrix out of the class and then, her modesty was outraged.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix for some undisclosed reason, wanted to falsely implicate the applicant, in respect of which, the applicant had lodged report in the police station earlier that he might be falsely implicated. He submits that at one point of time, the applicant had extended help to the prosecutrix in getting her son treated. The present dispute is an offshoot of dispute relating to recovery of certain dues, not paid to the applicant in respect of expenses incurred by him. 4.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the prosecutrix has stated in the FIR as well as in the statement that the
applicant had dragged her out of the class and then attempt was made to outrage her modesty by catching hold of her hands and pulling her sari. 5.
Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon order dated 06.01.2015 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.A No.1063 of 2014.
6.
After going through the statement of the prosecutrix and the contents of the report and further that no specific reason has been stated by the applicant in the bail application or in the report as to why the prosecutrix would falsely implicate him, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
7.
The bail application is rejected.
Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J U D G E Rekha