Indramani Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No.193 of 2017 • Indramani Yadav S/o Anadi Ram, Aged About 34 Years Caste Yadav Occupation - Teacher ( Panchayat ) Grade - I I At Govt. Middle School Manjhipara, Block Mainpath, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh R/o Village Katkalo, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District Sarguja Chhattigarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, Civil And Revenue District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner :

Shri Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri D. R. Minz, Dy.GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 07/04/2017 Heard.

2.

The applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.188/2016, registered at Police Station-Sitapur, District Surguja for alleged commission of offence under Sections 354/34 of IPC and Section 5(C)(F), 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(1)B(1)(2) & 3(2)A(7) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3.

Case of the prosecution is that the applicant and co-accused outraged the modesty of a girl student in the school, when she was leaving the school in the evening.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of existing dispute in the matter of supply of mid day meal and that the father of the complainant is the office bearer in that society.

5.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that in the statement of the complainant given before the Magistrate, she has clearly involved the applicant by stating that the applicant asked the prosecutrix to pick up the keys of the motorcycle from the office and when the prosecutrix went inside the office and applicant came from behind and caught her and outraged her modesty.

6.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and material on record, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane