Satishchandra Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No.1375 of 2021 • Satishchandra Sharma S/o Shri Parashram Sharma Aged About 56 Years Caste Brahman, R/o Sinchai Colony Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned As Shatishchandra Sharma In First Bail Application M.C.R.C. 6015 Of 2020), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police StationLormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Shri Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Ravish Verma, GA Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 18/06/2021 Heard.

1.

The applicant has moved this application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.91/2020 registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The applicant was arrested on 19-06-2020.

2.

This is repeat bail application. Earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the application, in case of delay in trial. 3.

Prosecution case is that the applicant, in the name of providing employment, collected total amount of Rs.18 lakhs from three different persons and in this manner, cheated them and upon demand, he issued cheques in their favour, these cheques bounced.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the applicant has been falsely implicated under the alleged commission of offence as he never extended any assurance to anybody to provide employment and the transaction between the parties are related to some other transaction of loan and only because these cheques bounced, a false report has been lodged against him. It is also submitted that the investigation is complete, charge sheet has been filed

and that the applicant is in jail since 19-06-2020 and even after lapse of one year, there is no material progress in the trial. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is a government servant and he is not likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application by submitting that from the statement of three different persons, it is prima facie made out that the applicant has collected 18 lakhs from three complainants in the name of providing employment in the police department and thereafter, upon returning of money, cheques were issued which were also bounced.

5.

Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration the amount involved in the alleged offence and further considering that the investigation is complete, charge sheet has been filed and that the applicant is in jail since 19-06-2020 and the trial has not been concluded till date, the application is allowed. 6.

It is ordered that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with two local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court on the condition that he shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date of hearing, unless exempted.

Certified copy as per rules.

SD/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane