Dinesh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 177 of 2018 Dinesh S/o Devadas Tandan, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bhurki, Police Station Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Civil & Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, ---- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. Rituraj Burman, Advocate.

For the Respondent :

Mr. Suryakant Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board .0 3 .2018

1. This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 214/2012 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Dist. Bemetara (C.G) for the offences punishable under Sections420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, a report was made by one Santosh Kumar that he had purchased the land after certain documents provided to him i.e., Rin Pustika, B-1, P-2 etc., and huge amount of Rs. 41 lakhs was paid as a sale consideration. Subsequently when he went for mutation on the basis of said documents, it was revealed that the said documents were forged and the original owner of Ramchandra Jath was actually lodged in central Jail. It is alleged that the present applicant was also present during the course of transaction.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants

have been falsely implicated and no sale consideration was ever paid to him. He submits that it is alleged that he was present during the transaction, however, the applicant has not played any role.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application.

5. Perused the judgment of the court below wherein the Court below has observed that few of the accused were absconding and convicted few of the accused. Considering the same, it appears that the applicant was also absconding, therefore, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o