Naseem Ansari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 330 of 2020 • Naseem Ansari S/o Sahud Ansari Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kasba Shahpur, Police Station Kasba Shahpur, District Mujjafarpur, Uttarpradesh, Presently R/o Bhumiyakapur Ghantewali Gali Firoz Nagar Brahmapuri District Merut, Uttar Pradesh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant.

:

Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Sameer Sharma, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 27.02.2020

1. The applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 88/2019 registered at Police Station : Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. As per the prosecution case, on the basis of forged and fabricated appointment order in Agriculture Department of Chhattisgarh State, the present applicant along with other coaccused person has obtained Rs. 16,500/- from the complainant Ramkeva. Based on that, after investigation, offence has been registered against the applicant and he has been arrested.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would next submit that the present applicant has been made accused in the present case only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused persons and the other co-accused persons namely Ajay Kumar & Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju have already been granted bail (Annexure A/2) by this Court on 23.10.2019 passed in MCRC No. 5087/2019. He also submits that applicant is in jail since 20.02.2019 and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions and directions, which may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court, therefore, he may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant is the main accused person and the money which was obtained by the complainant had been transferred in the bank account number of present applicant, therefore, he may not be granted bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, facts and circumstances of the case, detention period of the applicant, particularly the fact that the other co accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court, as the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

7. Accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail on his

executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is directed to appear before the said Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Vijay Sahu