Narendra Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 849 of 2019 Narendra Pandey S/o Late Chain Kumar Pandey Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Bachera, Pondiuprora, Tahsil- Pondi, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationCity Kotwali, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent For the Applicant :

Smt. Seema Singh, Advocate For the State :

Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board /02/2019

1. This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC and there is no bail application is pending before any other Court.

2. Perused the case diary provided by the learned counsel for the State in connection with the Crime No.499/2018 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of IPC.

3. Prosecution story in brief is that complainant Pradeep Pandey is a resident of village Bhatgaon. Accused Narendra Pandey stated the complainant and his family members that he is taking tractor trolley agency of Force Balwan company along with his wife. They can also become partner by investing handsome amount. He also stated that they will get loan from bank through Kisan Credit Card. He will get prepared the Kisan Credit Card. The complainant and his family members gave him blank cheque, blank stamp papers, blank documents signed by them. The co-accused Lokendra Chandrakar @ Shatruhan who was employee of accused Narendra Pandey induced them to get loan through Kisan Credit Card which may be got prepared by accused Narendra Pandey. Accused Narendra Pandey withdrew Rs. 23,79,000/- from the Kisan Credit Card of complainant Pradeep Pandey..

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is innocent and falsely

implicated in the present case, therefore, he shall be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application. He further submits that no criminal antecedents against the applicant.

6. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that no fraud has been played by the applicant. There was a dispute between partners. Applicant is in jail since 25/10/2018. Charge-sheet has already filed. The cheque book, passbook have been seized from the complainant himself. Applicant has not withdraw any amount, thus he may be released on bail.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,looking to the material available on record against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail under Section 439 of CrPC. Accordingly, bail application is rejected.

Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge Kamde