Smt. Basant Chandrakar v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C (A) No. 841 of 2016 Smt. Basant Chandrakar, wife of late Vishwavimohan Chandrakar, aged about 50 years, R/o Sector-1, Professor Colony, Raipur, Police station Purani Basti, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent For the applicant :
Mr. S.C. Verma, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 16.09.2016
1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 101 of 2016 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) for the offences punishable under sections 420, 120-B/34 of IPC, the applicant has filed this application u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 24.07.2015 a report was made by one J.N. Chandra against the applicant and her other family members that his daughter was married to Dr. Choleshwar Chandrakar in the year 2009 and during the process of marriage, the applicant being the family member/relative has exaggerated the facts about financial status, educational qualifications, employment, monthly earnings etc., of Dr. Choleshwar and thereby has allured and cheated the complainant to perform marriage with his daughter.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage was performed long back in the year 2009 and the report was made in the year 2015 as some matrimonial dispute arose between the parties. It is further contended that the nature of allegations would go to show that the applicant has not committed any offence and the delay in lodging the report is also apparent on the face of record. He further submits that co-accused Dr. Choleshwar Chandrakar has been enlarged on regular bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.No. 4164/2016 on 28.07.2016. It is, therefore, submitted that considering the nature of allegations and the inter-se dispute between the parties, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail.
5. Perused the case diary and the documents. It shows that the report was made by J.N. Chandra on 24.07.2015 that his daughter was married to co-accused Dr. Choleshwar on false facts projected by the applicant being family member/close-relative during the course of marriage proposal about the holding of assets, qualifications, monthly earnings etc., of the bride-groom.
6. After perusal of the case diary documents and considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case where the applicant can be extended the benefit of section 438 Cr.P.C.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, she will be released on bail
by the officer arresting her on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting her or the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :- (i) that she will make herself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required;
(ii) that she will not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer; (iii) that she will not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that she will appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
C.c. as per rules.
Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao