High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/626/2016allowed

Ramnath Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-03-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Misc. Criminal Case No.626 of 2016 Ramnath Sahu, S/o Late Kejuram, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Kapsi, Police Station Korar, District Kanker (C.G.) ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant:

Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate.

For Non-applicant:

Mr. D.R. Minj, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 09/03/2016

1. The accused/applicant has moved this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No.258/2015, registered at Police Station Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that M/s. Sanjeevani Producer Company Limited has raised huge public money without prior permission of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) promising to double the amount and thereby committed the offence. The matter has been reported by Ravi Vishwakarma.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is agent of the said Company, he has not

collected any amount and he has only worked as agent in the said Company. The applicant is in jail since 21-9-2015. Charge-sheet has been filed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the application.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence, facts and circumstances of the case, role of the applicant, the fact that the present applicant is not Director of the Company and is not mainly responsible for the affairs of the Company, pretrial detention of the applicant and charge-sheet has been filed, I am of the view that it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

7. It is, therefore, directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance as and when directed.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma