Narendra Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 778 of 2020 • Narendra Singh S/o Mukhtiyar Singh, Aged About 43 Years R/o H No. 7485, Street No. 1 Ramdev Nagar, Koktapura, Muktasar, P.S. Mukhtarsar, City And District Mukhtarsar (Punjab) At Present R/o House Of Damodar Naidu Narmada Para, P.S. Ganj District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant.
:
Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/State :
Mr. Shameer Sharma, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 23.03.2020
1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 426/2018 registered at Police Station Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the IPC, Sections 4,5 & 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act 1978 and Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interest Act.
2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant lodged a report before concerned police station alleging therein that the present applicant, who is the Branch Manager of the company, as well as other co-accused have obtained money from the different persons in the name of Kim Infrastructure and Developers Limited and Nector Commercial Company Group companies with respect to doubling their money after the maturity period of 6 years and 3 months but after maturity they did not refund the said money. 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 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the applicant is a paid manager in the Kim Future Vision Service Ltd not in the company of Kim Infrastructure and Developers Ltd. or Nector Commercial Estate Ltd furthermore, the money has been deposited in the account of company not in the account of applicant. He next added that the applicant is in jail since 11.10.2018 and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions and directions, which may be imposed by this court, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail.
4. Per contra, State counsel and counsel opposes the bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the detention period of the applicant i.e. since 11.10.2018, 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. 5,00,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Remand 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