Kanhaiya Chandrakar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 1920 of 2018 • Kanhaiya Chandrakar S/o Shri Ghanaram Chandrakar Aged About 44 Years R/o- Q. No. 1-M, Street No. 7, Sector- 06, Kotwali Bhilai, DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The District Magistrate, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent __________________________________________________________ For Applicant :

Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr. Anil Pandey, Govt. Advocate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 02/05/2018

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.118/2017, registered at Police Station-Arakshi Kendra Newai, District- Durg(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. Applicant is in jail since 7.6.2017. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is still pending against the applicant. No case is made out against him. Similarly placed co-accused Harish Chandra has been granted bail by

Page No.2 this Court, hence, this applicant also be enlarged on regular bail.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that according to the complaint made, this applicant introduced to the complainant as Head of Human Resources Department of CSVTU and this applicant and one another co-accused had given assurance to the complainant, that he will get the job, hence, looking to the participation of this applicant he is not entitled for grant of bail.

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

5. As per the case, complaint has been made by complainant Vishwajeet Rai and Rupesh Meshram that he was given inducement by main accused Abhijeet Verdhan and that he has connections and he can arrange for the appointment of complainant and one another in CSVTU. The co-accused Abhijeet Verdhan introduced this applicant and one another co-accused as the person responsible for making such appointment and it is alleged that this applicant also gave such assurance subsequent to which the complainant paid Rs.4,35,000/- to Abhijeet Verdhan. Forged appointment letter was provided by coaccused Abhijeet Verdhan to the complainants on finding the froud and forging committed, the FIR has been lodged.

6. Considered on all the facts and circumstances of this case, applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is local resident of District-Durg. Similar placed co-accused has been granted regular bail. For this reason, I feel inclined to grant regular to this applicant.

7. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in

Page No.3 the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for his appearance as and when directed.

Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nisha