Rahul v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 247 of 2018 • Rahul S/o Rajesh Mehta Aged About 25 Years R/o Premabag Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Police Station Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent __________________________________________________________ For Applicant :

Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr. Anupam Dubey, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 21/06/2018

1. The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.419/2017 registered at Police Station- Manendragarh, Civil & Revenue District - Korea(C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact applicant had borrowed only Rs.25,000/- from the complainant which he intends to repay back. The other allegation made about receiving Rs.2 lakh etc. is totally false. No case is made out against this applicant, hence, it is prayed that he may be released on anticipatory bail.

Page No.2

3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that looking to the evidence collected in the investigation, applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Heard both the parties and perused the case diary.

5. According to prosecution case registered against the applicant, he on pretext that he can arrange for appointment of the complainant as Teacher in Government School obtained Rs.2,25,000/- by way of illegal gratification. He also promised that the complainant shall get appointment letter which she never received, hence, the FIR was lodged.

6. Considering the submissions made and the facts in the case diary, it appears that no extra ordinary case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge NIsha