Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRCA/2162/2019 of MANOJ SINGH Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 24 December 2019
CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C.( A ) No. 2162 of 2019 Manoj Singh S/o Shri Shiv Narayan Aged About 52 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Gevra Basti, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station AJAK, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ----
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C.(A) No. 2162 of 2019
Manoj Singh S/o Shri Shiv Narayan Aged About 52 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Gevra Basti, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station AJAK, Korba, District Korba,Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For the Applicant : Shri Gurudev I Sharan, Advocate.For the Respondent/State :Shri Anand Verma, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh SamantORDER
24.12.2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard on application under Section 438 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973.
2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who isapprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 26 of 2019, registered atPolice Station – AJAK, Korba, District – Korba, Chhattisgarh for the offencespunishable under Sections 294, 506, 323 and 455/ 34 of the Indian PenalCode and Section 3(2)(5)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the earlier offenceswere registered against the applicant under Sections 294, 506 and 323/ 34of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the applicant was grantedregular bail by the Learned trial Court at remand stage. However, at thestage of filing the charge-sheet another offence under Section 455 of the IPChas been added because of which, the applicant is apprehending arrest,therefore, he filed an application before the Learned Special Court for grantof anticipatory bail and after the rejection of same, this application has beenfiled before this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be benefitedwith grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and thesubmissions made in this respect. It is submitted that the added offence is adifferent offence and the applicant has no entitlement for grant of any relief inthis case.
5. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considered the submissions. As the applicant is already on bail witheffect of the order passed by the Learned Special Court itself before whichthe charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, with the addedoffence. The principle is already settled that by any addition of offence in acase the arrest of the person concerned on bail cannot be made without thecancellation of the earlier bail order by which the person was granted bail.Therefore, according to this principle, the applicant has no requirement toseek any anticipatory bail. As it is informed that the respondent/ State hasnot moved any application for cancellation of bail of the applicant, therefore,the proceeding by the learned trial Court for making arrest of the applicant ishereby quashed.
Nimmi
7. On the basis of the observations made herein-above, this applicationis disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)VacationJudge