Smt. Jyotsana Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 248 of 2021 • Smt. Jyotsana Sharma, W/o Shri Pankaj Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 07, (Bhatapara) Saja, Thana- Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Officer Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent With MCRCA No. 381 of 2021

1. Sunbajan Dahre, S/o Shri Tukaram Dahre, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Potiyakala Durg, Thana- Durg, Distt.- Durg (Chhattisgarh).

2. Lavkumar Mishra, S/o Shri Ramprasad Mishra, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Aaadarsh Nagar, Kawardha, Thana- Kawardha, Distt.- Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh).

3. Ravikant Sahu, S/o Shri Puneet Ram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Hathkhoj, Thana- Bhilai 03, Distt.- Durg (Chhattisgarh).

---- Applicants

Versus

• The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana In-charge, Police Station - Saja, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Adv.

In MCRCA No. 248/2021 Mr. Samir Singh, Adv.

In MCRCA No. 381/2021 For Respondent/State : Mr. B.P. Banjare, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 24.06.2021

1. As both MCRCAs arise out of same crime number, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

2. These applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed by the applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 501/2020 registered at Police Station- Saja, District- Bemetara, (C.G.) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of IPC.

3. Case of the prosecution is that, it has been alleged that present applicants committed fraud and got assistant teacher (LB) job and there is no any appointment is issued in favour of the present applicants. Based on this, offence was registered against the present applicants.

4. Learned counsels for the applicant submit that the present applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They further submit that there is no any direct evidence to show the ingredients of the offence against the applicants and there is no any antecedent registered against them, therefore, the present applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the State however opposes the application for anticipatory bail.

6. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one local surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/ investigating officer or the Court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions: (i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the concerned investigating officer as and when required.

(ii) that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing

such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the applicants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi