Vijay Kumar Bhaskar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4332 of 2016 • Vijay Kumar Bhaskar S/o Ganpat Ram Aged About 22 Years Caste Chamar, Occupation Labour R/o Village Dumarpara, Police Station Patna, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baikutpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shobha Kashyap, Dy.Govt. Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 08.08.2016

1. This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 99 of 2016 registered at P.S. Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419, 120-B of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, one Pranpati wife of Hari Prasad lodged a report on 16.04.2016 stating that the other coaccused came to her and said that they will install a mobile tower in her land and in lieu thereof the complainant will get cash of Rs.50,000/- and further Rs.15000/- towards monthly rent and subsequently during conversation one person came with gold biscuit and offered it for sale for Rs.8,00,000/-. At such moment, the present applicant along-with other coaccused Vinod @ Sekhar Soni assured her to purchase the same on behalf of the Company and asked him to come after a day. The next day again the applicant and co-accused Vinod came to the house of complainant to purchase the same as the Company was not able to purchase. On the

basis of that the complainant had paid Rs.8 lakhs to one of the co-accused. Subsequently the gold which was purchased and given it in a tiffin box was found to be fake.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire fraud/cheating has been committed by the other co-accused with complainant and this applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the charge sheet in this case has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 29.04.2016, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail.

5. Perused the statement of victim. It appears that main allegations have been attributed to Vijay present applicant and other co-accused Vinod @ Sekhar Soni @ Rajesh Soni, Somasit @ Siddhant.

6. Considering the degree of allegations and the role played by applicant and further taking into totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o