HIQHCOUtCT6KeHi-(iBaE'i'IS©«8!-tiatTBIlXSRUR ^ SiCrMiPa:Nffi6b4.:of^W%'^^ Mohd. Shafique Qureshi, Sto. Late Mohd. Sharif Qureshi, 59 years. R/o. 37/198, Kalimi Manzil, Madarsa Road, Baijnath para, Raipur ResDpndents Vs. 1. 2. -^' Afroj Anjum, S/o. Abdul Sattar, 25 years, R/o. Sirat Moidan, Baijhath Para, Raipur. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Statlon House Officer, PoSice Stafion Goie Bazar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) (Appiication u/s 439I2tof Cr.P.C.) h'resent: Shri Y.C. Sharma, counsei forthe aoDiicant. Shri A"/!nd Dubey, Pane! Lawyer for the State. Sinaie Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dhirenara tmshr&^i GRAL ORDER (17.08-20-10) 1. ResDondent No.1 GQp.testeci eiection of ward member from a ward reser'/ed for Other Backward Class. Crime No.215/2010 has been reaistered 'n Police Station Goie Bazar, Raipur against him under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the aiiegation that he Qbtalned faise caste certificate by showing that he belongs to Manihar sub-caste. Atter registration ot crime, he appiied for aniiclDatorv bai! under Section 438 of the Code of Criminai Procedure and tesmed 2t Additional Sesslons Judge, Raipur has ailowed the same bv the impuaned order. 2. By this aopiicatiQn under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., the appiicant, on whoss cQmpiaint crlme has been reaistered against respondent No.1, has prayed for cancetiation "f tne bai! order on the ground that the aDDiicatiQ" nas been aiiowed without appiication Qf mind and on the extraneous around that respondent No.1 is an eiected ward member Sg^^^^sS, »8MM and a respectable member of the society, he is also a pei'manent resident of Raipur and as such, thsre js no likeiihood of his absconding. Shri Y.C. Sharma, iearned counsel for the applicant submits that from perusat of the impugned order it would be evident that the learned Additional Sessions Judge without adverting to the seriousness of ailegatsons against respondent No.l-accused, granted baii by extraneous consideration, which is irretevant for the purpose of consideratiQn of bail. Lookina to the aravity of the charge, which seriously affects the functioning of the democracy, respondent No.1 was n"t entitied for protectiQn under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and the Court beiow ought to have rejected hls appiication. 4. Meard iearned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned Adaitional Sessions Judge after considering the ailegatiQ.n in the case diary against respondent No.1, aiiowed his appiication with an Qbservation that compiainant-Mohd Shafique Qureshi has also fiied an elect'on petitiQn against the accused against his eiection, which !s penaing in the Court of Disirici Judge; the accused is an eiecied ward member and as such, a respectabie member of the society and permanent resident of Raipur and the offence is triabie b" Maaistrate First Ciass. it has been made c!ear in the order that the protection aranted to the accused wouid be effective for a period of 2 months from the date of passing of order and in the meanwhiie, the accused can appiy for regular baii before the concerned Court. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of a'iegation against respondent No.1, which was made after his nomination paper was accepted in the CorDoraiion election. and atso considerina that the DrQfection WWSWXMWKiKVS'SaS-V^ •&. againsi arrest inconnectionwith the aforesaid crime wasexterided to respondent No.1 for a limited period of two months and his regular bail appiication is to be considered by the competent Court on merits, 1 am of the opinion that iearned Additional Sessions Judae has not committed any iilegaiity or irregutarity in exercise of its jurisdiction in extending protectiQn to respondent No.1 by the impugned order. i flnd no ground for canceiiation of bail granted to respQndent No.1 by the impugned order. Accordingly, the appiicatiQn is dismissed /n limine at ihe admission staae itseir. Dhirendra Mishra Judge Blni