← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRCA/802/2015allowed

Manoj Madhariya And ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-08-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 802 of 2015

1. Manoj Madhariya S/o Shri Santuram Madhariya Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Tarpongi, Police Station - Dharsiwa, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. Sunil Madhariya S/o Shri Samaru Ram Madhariya Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Tarpongi, Police Station - Dharsiwa, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

3. Anil Verma S/o Shri Janakram Verma Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Tarpongi, Police Station - Dharsiwa, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

4. Rajesh Verma S/o Shri Ramsingh Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Tarpongi, Police Station - Dharsiwa, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ---- Applicants

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through : Station House Officer, Police Station - Nevra, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondent Shri Vipin Punjabi, counsel for the applicant/s. Shri Manish Nigam, Panel Lawyer for the State. Order On Board 27/08/2015 Heard.

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.189/15 registered at police station - Nevra, Distt. - Raipur, C.G. for alleged commission of offences under Section 294, 506, 323 & 452/34 of IPC. 2.

Prosecution case is that due to electricity cut, the applicants got enraged and they entered the electricity office, threatened the employees and one of the employees is alleged to have been slapped.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations are exaggerated. Due to disruption of electricity supply, there were some hot talks. But there is no overt act of assaulting any public servant who were discharging their duties.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the applicants entered the office and threatened the employees and it is alleged that one of the employees was slapped.

5.

Taking into consideration the nature of allegations particularly taking into consideration that there are no specific injury of any noticeable nature and the allegation seems to be more in the nature of quarrel and that the applicant is having no criminal antecedent, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants. 6.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid offence, they shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- along with one local surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and the applicants shall abide by all the following terms and conditions - (i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

(ii) that they 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.

(iii) that they shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Deepti