Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47098 (CHH)

RAJANIKANT LENKA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRCA/1690/2025 · 2025-11-03

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:53935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1690 of 2025 Rajanikant Lenka S/o Anadi Charan Lenka Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. M.B. 74, Badgad Brit Colony, Near Bramheshwar Temple Bhubneshwar District Khorda (Orissa) 751018 ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O6cer, P.S. City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : None For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.11.2025 1. None appeared nor is any any representation made on behalf of the applicant to press this anticipatory bail application on the repeated calls. 2. Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the non- applicant/State, is present. 3. This Second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been ;led by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 No. 12/2024 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC. 4. The earlier First anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 591/2025, vide order dated 29.04.2025, on merits. Hence this second anticipatory bail application. 5. Learned State counsel submits that in the present case, he has not yet received the case diary though a communication was made to the authority concerned for sending the case diary by the o6ce of the Advocate General but till date the case diary has not yet received. 6. In view of the above, it appears that the applicant has lost his interest in pursuing the matter. Hence, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the anticipatory bail application. 7. Consequently, the instant anticipatory bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal