Mohammad Taiyyab Qadri v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 1954 of 2020 • Mohammad Taiyyab Qadri S/o Shri Abdul Sakur Qadri, aged 35 years, R/o Shubhash Nagar Kukripara Raipur (C.G.) Tah. & District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ---- Respondent For Applicant :
Ms. Aprajita Gayakwad, Advocate For Respondent :
Shri Sameer Sharma, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 11/06/2020 1.
The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.83/2020, registered at Police Station - Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 4, 5, 7 of Immoral TrafÏc (Prevention ) Act, 1956 and Section 25 of Arms Act.
2.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that police of police station Rajendra Nagar received a secret information from the informant about business of prostitution running in the flat of Saraswati Manikpur situated at New Rajendra Nagar. Based on this, on 25.02.2020 the police ofÏcial acted upon and sent a person (pointer) to the spot and on information as given by the pointer the police ofÏcial conducted raid and found the
present applicant and other persons indulged in business of prostitution. Based on this, the offence has been registered. The present applicant is in custody since 27.02.2020. 3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the co-accused has already been granted bail. He further submits that the present applicant is in custody since 27.02.2020 and there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future. Therefore, he may also be released on bail.
4.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application.
5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.
6.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence and further considering the fact that the present applicant is in custody since 27.02.2020 and the disposal of case may take some time, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail.
7.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed till the disposal of the trial.
8.
It is made clear that if the applicant has already been
released on bail pursuant to the bail bonds already furnished in view of the order passed by the High Power Committee constituted in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 23.03.2020 in the matter of In Re : Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in Prisons (Suo Moto Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020), he need not furnish bail bonds afresh and the bail bonds already furnished shall be deemed to be the bail bonds furnished in compliance of the order of this Court, but if he has not furnished the bail bonds earlier, then he will be required to furnish bail bonds within four weeks from today.
Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Pekde