Ravi Deshmukh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 735 of 2020 • Ravi Deshmukh S/o Late Shri Punitram Deshmukh Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Koliyapuri, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Gandai, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent __________________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Sushil Sahu, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 10.02.2020

1. The Applicant has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 149/2018, registered at Police Station - Gandai, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 3,4, & 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act (PITA), 1956.

2. First bail application of the applicant was allowed by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2018 passed in MCRC No. 5936/2018 and applicant was directed to appear before the trial Court as and when directed. Applicant fail to appear before the trial Court on 16.09.2019. Thereafter, Trial Court issued arrest warrant against the applicant and in compliance of the that, applicant was taken into custody on 03.12.2019. Hence, the second bail application.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that vide order dated 29.08.2018 passed in MCRC No. 5936/2018, applicant was granted regular bail by this Court. After passing of the said order, applicant was regularly appearing before the trial Court. On

16.09.2019, applicant fail to appear before the trial Court, thereafter, trial Court issued arrest warrant against the applicant and he (applicant) was arrested by the police on 03.12.2019. Since then applicant is in jail and trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, it is prayed that bail may be granted to the applicant.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with due care.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by Counsel for the applicant and further considering the fact that Applicant is in custody since 03.12.2019 and trial is likely to take some time, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release him on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash