Smt. Anjulata Sahu @ Anju v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC(A) No. 1065 of 2018 • Smt. Anjulata Sahu @ Anju, aged about 22 years, w/o Durgesh Sahu R/o village Pawni, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (CG) ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara(CG) ---- Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Shri Manoj Paranjape and Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Govt. Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 28/8/2018 1.

Heard.

2.

This is the second bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 175/2018, registered at Police Station Bilaigarh, District Baloda BazarBhatapara(CG) for the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3.

As per the application, earlier, due to miscommunication it was submitted before the Court that the applicant had given birth to a child, but subsequently, it was revealed that the due date of delivery is 23.10.2018, therefore, the applicant be extended benefit of anticipatory bail in the event of arrest. 4.

The earlier bail application was decided on merits. In the said application, it was mentioned by the applicant that she just

gave birth to a child whose age is about one month. Now it is submitted that date of delivery is 23.10.2018. The application was dismissed on 3.8.2018 and merits of the case would not be changed in any way. Even if, the applicant surrenders before the authority concerned, medical facility shall be provided to her as per rules.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to take a different view what is recorded in order dated 3.8.2018 by this Court.

6.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

Sd/ (Ram Prasanna Sharma) JUDGE sunita