Khuman Das Manikpuri v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2172 of 2020 Khuman Das Manikpuri, S/o- Late Khedan Manikpuri, Aged about- 35 years, R/o- House No. 224/K/1 Ward No. 13, Bhatapara, Village & Post Datan, Tahsil Palari, District- Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.) -----Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ----- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :
Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondent/State :
Mr. Ayaz Naved. Govt. Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 17/06/2020
1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his release on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No.115/2020, registered at Police Station - Durg, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint was lodged by Sadan Jal alleging therein that the present applicant had executed an agreement with the complainant for the sale of government Kotwari land bearing Khasra No. 481 area 0.906 hectare, Khasra No. 5915 area 3.414 out of which agreement for selling 3 acres of land had been executed and amount of Rs. 7,20,000/- has been given by the complainant through cheque. It was found that the land is government land then the present applicant has been dishonored. Based on this, offence has been registered. The
present applicant is in custody since 14.02.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that as the applicant is in custody since 14.02.2020., charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, therefore, he may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the nature of offence and further considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 14.02.2020., charge sheet has been filed and there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, without further commenting on merits of the case, 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 filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
8. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed, till the disposal of the trial.
9. 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 23.3.2020 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 bond afresh and the bail bond already furnished shall be deemed to be the bail bond furnished in compliance of the order of this Court, but if he has not furnished the bail bond earlier, then he will be required to furnish bail bond within four weeks from today.
10.Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Nadim