Lochan Singh Rathore @ Monu Rathore v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. CRIMINAL CASE (A) NO. 158 OF 2017 Lochan Singh Rathore @ Monu Rathore, S/o Pritam Singh Rathore, aged about 39 years, occupation Journalist, R/o Purani Basti, Kharsiya, Police Station and Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Ajk, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant :

Mr. Atul Pandey, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State :

Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 18/05/2017 1.

The present application has been filed under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 06 of 2014, registered at Police Station- AJK, Raigarh, District Raigarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294, 506, 323, 395, 354, 452 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2.

As per the prosecution case allegation against the present Applicant is that he along with other accused persons is said to have entered into the residential house of the Complainant who was discharging her duties as Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Kharsiya. It is also alleged that the present Applicant with an intention of taking revenge for a complaint made against him and other accused persons on an earlier occasion by the present Complainant for which they were also jailed, forcefully entered into the house of the Complainant and is said to have assaulted and also tried to outrage her modesty.

-23.

Perusal of the record shows that there are statements recorded of some of the employees who were posted at the house of the Complainant at the relevant time and their statements also have been recorded during the course of investigation where they have fully corroborated the statement made by the Complainant.

4.

Considering the nature of the allegations made and also the active participation of the present Applicant in the said commission of offence, in addition the fact the FIR has been lodged on 9.3.2014 since than the present Applicant has evaded his arrest and charge-sheet also has been filed showing him to be an absconder, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail in favour of the present Applicant. 5.

Accordingly, the present application under Section 438 of CrPC is rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ Judge