Dinesh Sonkar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 7333 of 2021 • Dinesh Sonkar Son of Basant Sonkar aged about 21 Years Resident of Village - Nakapara, Charama, District - North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

------Applicant

VERSUS

• State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Charama, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh -------Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Mukesh Shrivastava, Adv.

For Non-applicant : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Panel Lawyer Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER

15/12/2021

1. Applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail as he has been arrested in crime number 122/2021 registered at Police station Charama, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh for offence punishable under Section 294, 307 of IPC.

2. Case of prosecution is, that complainant and applicant performed court marriage in the month of February 2021. After marriage, due to ill-treatment and assault upon complainant, she left company of applicant and started residing in her parents house. On 26.08.2021, at about 06:30 pm, when complainant went to vegetable market along with her mother and siblings, applicant came there started abusing her and assaulted her by means of knife due to which complainant suffered injuries on her head, face, arm and finger. Incident was reported to concerned police station based upon which aforementioned crime is registered

against applicant and he was arrested on 27.08.2021.

3. Mrs. Itu Rani Mukharjee, learned counsel for applicant submits that the intention of applicant was not to cause death of complainant even if the statement of complainant is taken as it is she suffered only four injuries and that too the doctor has reported them to be simple in nature. She was not admitted for a single day in the hospital, hence, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

4. Mr. B.L. Sahu, learned State counsel submits that applicant has caused injuries over vital part of body of complainant by means of knife. There is further allegation in the report that when complainant was residing in the company of applicant, she was being ill-treated, harassed and also assaulted by applicant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties.

6. Taking into consideration, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, facts and circumstances of the case, part of body on which complainant suffered injuries, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, application for grant of bail stands rejected. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge P a w a n