Ashish Kumar Chidipal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 617 of 2016 • Ashish Kumar Chidipal S/O Shri Mahesh Kumar Chidipal Aged About 40 Years Occupation Business, R/O Dhimrapur, Raigarh, Tahsil And Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Kotra Road, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

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

Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Govt. Advocate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 03-08-2016

1. The applicant has preferred the instant bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant ofanticipatory apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 114 of 2016 registered at Police Station Kotra Road, District Raigarh (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a report was made by the complainant Pawan Kumar Agrawal that the applicant entered into agreement with him on 19-09-2010 for sale of Khasra No.100/1 admeasuring 15 acres and sale consideration of Rs.21 lakhs was paid to him. It was further revealed that when the sale deed was not executed, the applicant is not ower of the said land and in fact he has entered into agreement with Hemlal for purchase of land on 20-7-2010 and the applicant not being owner of the said land received Rs. 21 lakhs from him ad thereby the aforesaid offence was committed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant woud submit that the nature of allegations are completely civil in nature and presently applicant has entered into agreement with complainant to return the amount of Rs.21 lakhs which was evident from Annexure A/2 which finds place in the order of rejection and no further investigation is required, therefore, the applicant may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned State counsel also submits that the case diary contains te compromise agreement.

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

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations leveled against the applicant and considering the agreement (Annexure A/2), I am inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. Accordingy, the bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., 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 him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju