Vinay Kumar Paikara v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3432 of 2016 Vinay Kumar Paikara, S/o. Aalam Say Paikara, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Village Bishunpur, Police Station Udaypur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through S.H.O., Police Station Udaypur, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

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

Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. O.P.Sahu, Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 01.07.2016 1.

This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 12/2016 registered at Police StationUdaypur, Sarguja (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 420 & 34 of Indian Penal Code & Section 5 & 5 of the Chit Fund & Money Circulation Scheme Act.

2.

As per the prosecution case, the Idol India Corporation Limited without sanction and permission of the SEBI or RBI collected money from different people with an assurance to double the same within a short span of time but subsequently when the time was lapsed, at the time of maturity, the Company all of a sudden closed and all the responsible persons fled away from the scene, thereby, the offence is committed.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was working as Computer Operator in the Company and he was not responsible for taking any policy decision and he himself was an

employee which would be evident from Annexure A-2, the appointment letter with the salary of Rs.4000/-, therefore, considering the fact that the applicant has not committed any offence, he may be enlarged on bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail, however, he do not dispute the fact that the applicant was only a Computer Operator in the Company and was an employee. 5.

Considering the submission made by the parties and taking into the role played by the applicant as he was not principally liable for any policy decisions of the Company, further considering the status of the applicant and the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 10.02.2016, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

6.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. He shall also appear before the trial Court as and when directed by the said Court. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE Ashok