Shatrughan Dhritlahre v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No. 2215 of 2018 Shatrughan Dhritlahre S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Dhritlahre Aged About 39 Years R/o- Village Themhapara, P.S.- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For the Applicant :

Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State :

Shri Anant Bajpai, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

ORDER

09.05.2018 Heard.

1.

This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.1.2018 with liberty to revive the same after two months in M.Cr.C. No. 5168 of 2017. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.198 of 2017, registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 30.3.2017 i.e. a period of more than one year and has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial is pending and so far no witness has been examined. Hence, looking to the fact that the trial against the applicant is

getting delayed, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 3.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that a serious allegation of cheating is there against the applicant. Hence, no case is made out for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4.

Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary. 5.

According to the prosecution case, this applicant told complainant - Bhupendra Kumar and others that he has connections and he is capable of getting the complainant and others appointed as constable in CRPF and he received Rs.2,28,000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification. Subsequently, a forged appointment letter was also given by the applicant to the complainant which on verification was found to be forged. Hence, FIR was lodged.

6.

Considered the material present in the case-diary. Taking into consideration the facts that the trial against the applicant is pending since more than one year, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and no progress has taken place in the trial against the applicant, hence, I am of the considered view that no purpose would be served in keeping the applicant in detention for the whole period of trial, the application deserves to be allowed.

7.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.

8.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed.

Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nimmi