Raman Robinson v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 231 of 2020 • Raman Robinson S/o Late Shri Sukhdayal Ram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattishgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh • State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, MCRC No. 238 of 2020 Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., MCRC No. 269 of 2020 Station- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., MCRC No. 271 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon • State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police

Station - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., MCRC No. 274 of 2020 Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., MCRC No. 384 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., MCRC No. 386 of 2020 Years Resident Of Ward No. 3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Station- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, MCRC No. 388 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No. 03, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, MCRC No. 394 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon • State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., MCRC No. 400 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., MCRC No. 403 of 2020 Station- Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., MCRC No. 391 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No. 03, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon

Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, For Applicant :

Shri Anil Pillai and Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocates For Respondent :

Shri Anil Tripathi, Shri Anurag Verma, Shri B.L. Sahu and Shri Wasim Miyan, P.L.

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 24/02/2020 1.

Since in the aforesaid bail applications the applicant is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

The applicant has preferred these first bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime Nos. 518/2019 in MCRC No.231/2020, 512/2019 in MCRC No.238/2020, 503/2019 in MCRC No.269/2020, 504/2019 in MCRC No.271/2020, 523/2019 in MCRC No.274/2020, 511/2019 in MCRC No.384/2020, 521/2019 in MCRC No.386/2020, 525/2019 in MCRC No.388/2020, 526/2019 in MCRC No.394/2020, 505/2019 in MCRC No.400/2020, 506/2019 in MCRC No.403/2020 and 514/2019 in MCRC No.391/2020 registered at Police Station - Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 and 120-B IPC. 3.

The allegation against the present applicant is that during his posting as Cashier in the Punjab National Bank in the year 2013, he obtained illegal benefit from the bank by involving the Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loan recipient in a criminal

conspiracy and acquired such loan by fraudulently preparing false and forged revenue records in connivance with certain bank ofÏcials and shared the loan amount among themselves. Based on this, offence has been registered. The present applicant is in custody since 15.10.2019 in MCRC No.231/2020, 02.12.2019 in MCRC No.238/2020, 22.11.2019 in MCRC No.269/2020, 15.10.2019 in MCRC No.271/2020, 22.11.2019 in MCRC No.274/2020, 22.11.2019 in MCRC No.384/2020, 02.12.2019 in MCRC No.386/2020, 02.12.2019 in MCRC No.388/2020, 02.12.2019 in MCRC No.394/2020, 02.12.2019 in MCRC No.400/2020, 02.12.2019 in MCRC No.403/2020 and 15.10.2019 in MCRC No.391/2020 in connection with the crime numbers as aforementioned. 4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. They further submit that the applicant was posted as head cashier in the bank and the duty of the head cashier is of cash transaction. Being a cashier, it is neither the duty of the applicant to sanction the loan amount nor to verify the documents submitted for the purpose of sanctioning of loan amount and his duty is to disburse the loan amount to the recipients. They also submit that the allegation against the present applicant is that the loan forms have been filled up by him, but no hand writing expert has been examined in this case to prove this fact. It has been also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the challan has been filed in this case, according to which, this is a zero case in challan.

They further submit that the applicant is in custody for more than four months, charge sheet has been filed, other coaccused persons have already been granted bail, the offence is triable by Magistrate and there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application. He submits that the applicant fraudulently obtained KCC loan amount meant for farmers.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

7.

Taking into consideration the entire circumstances of the case, gravity of offence and further considering the fact that the applicant is a Govt. Servant (head cashier in Punjab National Bank) and the manner in which the KCC loan is alleged to have been acquired and shared, I am not inclined to release him on bail.

8.

Accordingly, his applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are rejected.

9.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Pekde