Sonal Shukla v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 516 of 2020 • Sonal Shukla W/o Dushyant Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o- F-204, Shri Jagannath Enclave, Thana- New Rajendra Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhatttisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent _______________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.
__________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 19/06/2020
1. The matter is heard through video conferencing.
2. The Applicant has preferred the first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 77/2020 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 420 & 34 of I.P.C.
3. In the present case there are total four accused persons. According to the case of the prosecution, on 14.02.2020 a complaint was filed by one Smt. Mamta Jain alleging therein that on 4.5.2019 an agreement to sale was executed between her and Shefali Shukla i.e. mother of the present applicant for dealing of one flat for consideration amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- has already been obtained by co-accused Shefali Shukla. According to terms and
conditions of agreement to sale, Registry of the flat has to be done on or before 11.06.2019. Prior to that, co-accused Shefali without giving any notice to complainant, sold the said flat to one Satya Sushant Verma on 17.5.2019.
4. on 01.01.2020 on the basis of information received from Gopal Kashyap, police personnel reached the spot and caught hold the coaccused person namely Sameer Baksh. At that time Sameer Baksh was found in possession of 4 Kg of beef. It is alleged that present applicant was also present alongwith co-accused Sameer Baksh and fled away from the spot. Dehati Nalishi was recorded and on the basis of the said, offence has been registered.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no any direct evidence against present applicant. Applicant is implicated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure made by the co-accused Sameer Baksh. Therefore, it is prayed that present applicant may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application.
7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
8. Taking into consideration the submissions put-forth on behalf of the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence collected by the prosecution, without further commenting on other merits of the case, I am inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
10. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting
Officer/Presiding Officer of the concerned trial Court. He shall also abide by all the following terms and conditions : (i) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such fact to the Court, (ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him/her by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash