Sunil Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 7521 of 2016
1. Sunil Patel, S/o. Vedpati Patel, aged about 28 years, R/o. VillageChhote Bilaigarh, Police Station - Sariya, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ----Applicant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police of Police Station - Sariya, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 29/11/2016 1.
This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.118/2009, registered at Police Station - Sariya, District - Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2.
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a report was made by complainant - Pushpa Patel on 15.07.2009 that the applicant has treated the complainant/wife with cruelty. Thereby the offence has been committed.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was initially applied for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed.
Page No.2 Subsequently compromise was affected in between the applicant and the victim, which would be evident from the order sheet dated 28.02.2012 and the applicant and complainant were living together, consequently, an application was filed and the said application was also rejected despite that the applicant and the victim were living together. It is further submitted that the victim after 2015 left the applicant and started living with one Pradeep Kumar and report was made by her which would be evident from the document Annexure A/5 and false allegation have been attributed, therefore, the applicant deliberately did not absented from the Court, charge-sheet has been filed, applicant is in jail since 17.08.2016, therefore, the counsel prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
5.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6.
Perused the case diary and the documents and the order sheet of the Court below, wherein the Court has recorded that victim and the applicant entered into compromise and were living together and further the document Annexure A/5 would show that complainant has filed another complaint against Pradeep Kumar, with whom she started living. Taking into totality and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail. 7.
Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Page No.3 8.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed.
9.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram