Madhurima @ Riya Shukla v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C.(A) No. 548 /2017 Madhurima @ Riya Shukla, D/o. Shri N.P. Shukla, Aged About 41 Years, Occupation Business, R/o. Aditya Heights House No. B / 301, 3rd Floor, Teli Banda, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau, State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr. Anupam Dubey, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 19.07.2017 1.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.17/2015 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau, State Economic Offences Investigation Bureau, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 109, 120B of I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(e) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the applicant has preferred this second bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. The first anticipatory bail application was dismissed on merit on 02.12.2016 in MCRC(A) No.926 of 2016.

2.

As per the prosecution case, on a raid being conducted in the house of one Shiv Shankar Bhatt who was working in the Civil Supplies Corporation and from his brief case three photo copies of the sale deeds, few bills were recovered. Said sale deeds were in the name of the present applicant. It is case of the prosecution that the applicant was in relation with Shiv Shankar Bhatt and out of the ill gotten money certain benefits were also passed to the applicant

who also worked in the department from the period 26.02.2005 to 02.02.2009. It is further alleged that from the applicant certain cash were also recovered which was given by the other co-accused Shiv Shankar Bhatt. Thereby, the offence has been committed. 3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, therefore, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.

Perused the earlier bail rejection order dated 02.12.2016. Considering the fact that the earlier bail order was dismissed on merit and the applicant is still at large, I do not find any reason to reconsider the instant second anticipatory bail application, as no change of circumstances appears.

6.

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

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok