Ajay Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 914 of 2020

1. Nasim Ansari And Anr. S/o Sahut Ansari Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Present Address Bhumi Naka Bridge Chhoti Wali Gali, Firoj Maga Police Station Bramhpuri District Merath Uttar Pradesh.

2. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Dharmveer Singh Aged About 32 Years Resident Of House No. 118 Moh, Devidas Kasba Khatouli, Police Station Khatouli, District Mujffarnagar Uttar Pradesh ---- Applicants

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bemetara DistrictBemetara Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent MCRC No. 927 of 2020 • Ajay Kumar S/o Yaadram Dhanuk Aged About 29 Years Resident of Old Bagpat Adda, Mata Ka Bag, Bagadiya Mohhalla Police Station Bramhpuri, District- Merath Uttar Pradesh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Officer Saja District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicants.

:

Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Sameer Sharma, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 11.02.2020

1. The accused/applicants have moved this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 84/2019 registered at Police Station - Saza, District Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections

420, 467, 468, 471/34 of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, complainant Dinu had applied for the post of Peon in Chhattisgarh Rajya vipdan, and after getting appointment letter, a call was made to him demanding money towards security, agreement, insurance amount and verification to which the complainant deposited in all Rs. 51,000/- in the account of applicant Naseem Khan. Again a call was made to him by the same umber demanding money on which the complainant agreed to pay the amount in cash only to which the applicant denied then the complainant realized that some cheating has been done with him and forge appointment letter was issued to him. Based on that, after completion of investigation, offence has been registered against the applicants and they have been arrested.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the co-accused person has already granted bail by this Court on 27.01.2020 in MCRC No. 7970/2019, the applicants are in custody since 06.08.2019 and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, they 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.

6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, facts and circumstances of the case, detention period of the applicants, particularity the fact that the coaccused person namely Gautam Prajapati @ Gautam Solanki

has already granted bail by this Court, as trial is likely to take some time, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release them on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, with one local surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the said Court as and when directed.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Vijay Sahu