Rajeev Ranjan Mishra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 669 of 2020 • Rajeev Ranjan Mishra S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Mishra Aged About 50 Years R/o Bamleshwari Ward No. 11, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. Navin Shukla, Adv.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, PL.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 13/03/2020

1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 508/2019 registered at Police Station Dongargarh, DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 and 120-B of IPC.

2. The prosecution story, in brief is that, on 09.09.2019 a written complaint was filed by the Punjab National Bank, Bhandarpur that on 04.07.2013 applicant Rajeev Kumar Ranjan presented fake patwari records to bank proceedings in conspiracy with Ashish Shrivastava and Raman Ravesram. After completing the banking process opened an account bearing account No. 2782008800018099 and on 04.07.2013 obtained Rs. 1,00,000/- of Kisan Credit Loan, when the amount of loan was not repaid the bank sent notice to the account holder, even after the notice the amount of loan was not paid back to the bank, then the bank verified the records

of land which was not found to be in the name of the lender. The loan recipient i.e. the present applicant along with other co-accused persons has cheated the bank. Based on this offence has been registered against the present applicant and other co-accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the other accused in different crime number but the same allegation has already been granted bail in MCRC No. 7625/2019 so, the present applicant may also be granted benefit of bail. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 28.11.2019, there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the State 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, detention period of applicant and further considering the facts that the other accused has already been granted bail in same allegation. The applicant is in jail since 28.11.2019, and 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 trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge H.L. Sahu