Ruchir Gedam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 250 of 2018 • Ruchir Gedam S/o Shri Vishwanath Gedam Aged About 30 Years R/oPlot No. 19, Professor Colony, Bhilainagar, Tahsil- Durg, Civil And Revenue District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer Police Station- Supela, Civil And Revenue District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent ________________________________________________________ For Applicant :

Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Advocate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 04/05/2018

1. The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.298/2017 registered at Police Station- Supela, District - Durg(C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. In the alleged commission of offence, no role has been played by this applicant. The concerned Radhika Agency was registered in the name of co-accused Aditya Dubey and all the amount withdrawn has been deposited in the account of said agency. This applicant was not a recipient of the

Page No.2 amount so withdrawn, no case is made out against the applicant. Hence, it is prayed that he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that according to the statement of witnesses in this case, applicant himself was one of the staff in the Sparsh Multispeciality Hospital, Bhilai, and responsible for the purchases made and the forged bills of Radhika agencies were routed through this applicant, thus he cannot deny his involvement in the alleged commission of offence, hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

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

5. The allegation against this applicant is this, that supply of medicine by a Radhika agencies were verified and cleared by this applicant, who happens to the Manager of purchase department and on that basis the payment for bills were withdrawn from the account of Sparsh Multispeciality Hospital. Managing Director of the hospital discovered the defalcation in the accounts and the computer entries. Inspection was made by Chartered Accountant and it was found, that co-accused Aditya Dubey was the registered proprietor of Radhika Agency and bills were produced with respect to that agency regarding supply of medicine which was physically not supplied to the hospital and withdrawal were made with the help of this applicant and Rs.13 lakhs were found to be withdrawn on the basis of forged bills in favour of Radhika Agency.

6. After perusal of diary statement of the witnesses and the responsibility of this applicant that he had cleared fake and forged bills, I am of this view that no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

Page No.3

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