Punitram Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 531 of 2016 • Punitram Dewangan S/O Shri Sewakram Dewangan Aged About 46 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/O Village Temri, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. Bharatlal Dembra, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 29-07-2016 1.

This application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 82 of 2016 registered at Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara (CG) for offence punishable under Section 409 & 420/34 of the IPC.

2.

As per the prosecution case, a report was made by the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Temri Branch against earlier Branch Manager that certain amount for crop insurance which came to the Branch, the former Branch Manager Buddhi Prakash Bangade transferred it to the different account holder and thereafter withdrew the same on the basis of withdrawal form signed by the account holder and benefited himself to the extent of Rs.18,59,741/- and thereby the aforesaid offence was committed. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant is aged about 46 years of old and an illiterate person and in his account the amount was deposited by the former Branch

Manager. He would further submit that one time some signatures were obtained by the former Branch Manager on the pretext of Kisan Credit Card at that time signatures on the withdrawal form were got signed and the amount was withdrawn. He would further submit similarly placed other co-accused has been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail vide order dated 3-5-2016 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 366 of 2016, therefore, present applicant may also be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the fact that similarly placed other co-accused has been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

5.

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

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations leveled against the applicant and further considering the fact that similarly placed other co-accused has been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail, I am inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions:

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; (iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju