Skip to content


Satya Narayan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Criminal

Court

Chhattisgarh High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Misc. Cr. Case No. 1619/2002

Judge

Reported in

2003CriLJ2899; 2002(4)MPHT6(CG)

Acts

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 376

Appellant

Satya Narayan

Respondent

State of Chhattisgarh

Appellant Advocate

Manoj Mishra, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

Sharmila Singhai, Adv.

Disposition

Misc. cr. case dismissed

Excerpt:


- .....j. 1. heard.2. the applicant has been arrested in connection with crime no. 59 of 2002 registered at p.s. lakhanpur for the offence punishable under section 376, ipc.3. a perusal of the order passed by the court below shows that earlier learned sessions judge on two occasions i.e., 14-5-2002 and 19-6-2002 rejected the application for bail. the allegation is that when the prosecutrix was returning, the accused on the way caught hold of her, gagged her mouth and committed assault. it is stated that there are injuries on the person of prosecutrix.4. learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely been implicated due to enmity and also contends that there was some dispute of property. certain grounds have been urged in paragraph 6.4 regarding property dispute and in para 6.5 it has been stated that the applicant has demanded rs. 50,000/- from kameshwar, the husband of the prosecutrix for not disclosing the matter of beating to his servant and causing his death by poisoning, hence the husband of prosecutrix have enemical terms with the applicant.5. in view of the allegations made in the application from which it is borne out that the applicant himself had demanded.....

Judgment:


ORDER

Fakhruddin, J.

1. Heard.

2. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 59 of 2002 registered at P.S. Lakhanpur for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC.

3. A perusal of the order passed by the Court below shows that earlier learned Sessions Judge on two occasions i.e., 14-5-2002 and 19-6-2002 rejected the application for bail. The allegation is that when the prosecutrix was returning, the accused on the way caught hold of her, gagged her mouth and committed assault. It is stated that there are injuries on the person of prosecutrix.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely been implicated due to enmity and also contends that there was some dispute of property. Certain grounds have been urged in Paragraph 6.4 regarding property dispute and in para 6.5 it has been stated that the applicant has demanded Rs. 50,000/- from Kameshwar, the husband of the prosecutrix for not disclosing the matter of beating to his servant and causing his death by poisoning, hence the husband of prosecutrix have enemical terms with the applicant.

5. In view of the allegations made in the application from which it is borne out that the applicant himself had demanded the amount for screening the offender. Such person is not entitled for grant of bail. The application fails and is dismissed.

6. It is made clear that the applicant is at liberty to raise such defences which are available including false implication before the Trial Court and in case such allegations are raised, they shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //