High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRCA/993/2016dismissed

Sunil Mourya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-10-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 993 of 2016 • Sunil Mourya S/o Shri Atmaram Mourya Aged About 28 Years Caste Harijan, R/o. Village Kurna, Police Station Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through The Station House Officer, Police Station Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. Mukesh Shrivastava, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 27.10.2016

1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 137 of 2016 registered at Police Station Narharpur, Distt. North Bastar, Kanker (C.G) for the offences punishable u/ss 294, 448, 384, 186 of IPC & 3 of Public Property Damages Act the applicant has filed this application u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 16.08.2016 a report was made by one Kaushalya Shori, President, Janpad Panchayat, Narharpur, Distt. Kanker that on 16.08.2016 the applicant entered into the office and demanded to give him the list of mobile numbers of Sarpanch, Secretary as he was doing the same from the past and earlier also the applicant used to come to the office and demand money or else threat was extended that he will publish news against the persons thereby the offence is committed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant in fact wanted to bring to the notice of public the corruption activities of the Sarpanch being committed in the area as various amounts were paid without any bill or vouchers, for which he demanded the documents and being enraged by his said act, false allegations have been attributed to the present applicant and no offence has been committed. He referred to documents filed alongwith the petition and prays that under the circumstances, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer.

5. Perused the case diary diary which also contains the report of the complainant and the statements of witnesses. Taking into totality of the circumstances, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o