Vinod Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3183 of 2016 • Vinod Kumar Sahu S/O Panch Ram Sahu Aged About 25 Years Occupation - Service, R/O Dadar Khurd, Housing Board Colony, Korba, Police Station - Kotwali, Tahsil - Korba, Civil & Revenue District - Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Out Post - Rampur Korba, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. Praveen Das and Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocates For Respondent/State :

Mr. O.P. Sharma, Govt. Advocate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 29.06.2016 1.

This is the fourth bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 22-10-2015 in connection with Crime No.417 of 2015, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Outpost Rampur, District Korba (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC.

2.

As per prosecution case, on 19-10-2015 one Tanuj Kumar Vaishav lodged a report against co-accused Pawak Kumar alleging that Pawan Kumar has assured him of arranging employment in Ayurvedic Hospital on payment of Rs.1.50 lacs. The complainant initially paid Rs.40,000/- to Pawan Kumar and the remaining amount was paid subsequently in installments. Pawan Kumar thereafter handed over one forged letter of appointment and on the basis of such appointment letter, complainant could not get job. On complaint made by the Tanuj Kumar Vaishnav another forged letter of appointment was handed over to him, however, yet

again he could not procure the job and on enquiry it came to fore that the main accused Pawan Kumar along with applicant has received the amount and given forged appointment letter. 3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after rejection of the bail application on 25-11-2015 Rajkumar Sharma has preferred the bail application from whom an amount of Rs.10 lacs was recovered and he has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 16-5-2016 passed by the co-ordinating Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C.No.2169 of 2016 and the case of the applicant is better than the case of co-accused Rajkumar Sharma. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant is in jail since 22-102015 and no further investigation is necessary, therefore, he may be released on bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

5.

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

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, degree of offence and nature of allegation leveled against the applicant and further considering the fact forged seal certain articles which were used in issuing the forged appointment were recovered from the applicant, I do not find any changed circumstances to reconsider fourth bail application after rejection of the earlier bail application.

7.

Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is also liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju