Pradeep Jamba Shinde v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 1126 of 2020 • Pradeep Jamba Shinde S/o Jamba Shinde Aged About 29 Years R/o B-904, Devarshi Complex Manaji Nagar, P. S. and District : Pune, Maharashtra ---- Applicant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Officer, Police Station Supela District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent MCRC No. 1425 of 2020 • Yogendra Kumar Sahu S/o Haldhar Ram Sahu Aged About 34 Years Resident Of 41, Ganpati Vihar, Ward No. 53, Borsi, Durg, DistrictDurg Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through- Reservation Centre- Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicants :
Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate & Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Objector :
Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For Respondent/State :
Miss Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 01.06.2020
1. The accused/applicants have moved this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his release on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No.238/2018, registered at Police Station - Supela, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 120 B of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint was lodged by Smt. Usha Singh alleging therein that the accused persons have committed fraud with the complainants, they induced them to deposit a huge money
in the investment companies and upon their inducement they deposited amount in the account of other co-accused and the present applicants have also transferred entire amount in the account of the other co-accused and ran away thereafter the above case is registered against the applicants. Based on this, offence has been registered. The present applicants are in custody since 13.01.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that as the applicant is in custody since 13.01.2020, charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, therefore, they may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
5. Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the bail application.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the nature of offence and further considering the fact that the applicants are in jail since 13.01.2020, charge sheet has been filed and there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the applicants should be enlarged on regular bail.
8. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
9. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety each in like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed, till the disposal of the trial.
10.It is made clear that if the applicant has already been released on bail pursuant to the bail bonds already furnished in view of the order passed by the High Power Committee constituted in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 23.3.2020 in the matter of In Re : Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in Prisons (Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 1/2020), they need not furnish bail bonds afresh and the bail bonds already furnished shall be deemed to be the bail bonds furnished in compliance of the order of this Court, but if they have not furnished the bail bonds earlier, then they will be required to furnish bail bonds within four weeks from today.
11.Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Nadim