← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/3391/2016rejected

Nihal Ahmad @ Chhotu @ Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-07-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3391 of 2016 • Nihal Ahmad @ Chhotu @ Pandey S/o Siraj Ahmad, Aged About 28 Years R/o Samarinagar Mohall, Chhatarpur, P. S. Kotwali, District Chhatarpur ( Madhyapradesh) -- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Durg, District Durg ( Chhattisgarh ) --- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. S. K. Guha, Advocate For the Respondent :

Miss. Tripti Rao, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 07.07.2016

1. This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 414/2013 registered at P.S. Purani Bhilai, District Durg (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 379 & 420 of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, a report was made by Ravindra Singh on 02.10.2013 that in the intervening night of 28th/29th of Sept. 2013, his Bolero vehicle bearing Regn. No. C.G.07/T-2184 was stolen from his premises and subsequently after two years the applicant was arrested at Sagar (M.P) and the vehicle was recovered from the possession of one Ajit Bedia to whom the stolen vehicle was sold by changing the registration number.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the investigation in this case is complete and no further investigation is necessary. He further submits that the charge sheet in this case has been filed and the applicant is

in jail since 07.10.2015, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail.

5. Perused the case diary and other documents.

6. Considering the nature of allegations and the way the offence has been committed as 7 accused were arrested and the applicant was also involved in committing theft and other similar type of offences, I am not inclined to allow this application. Accordingly it is rejected.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o