High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/2249/2019allowed

Saiyad Majid Ali v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-05-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2249 of 2019 • Saiyad Majid Ali S/o Saiyad Hashim Ali Aged About 40 Years R/o Takiyapara Durg Tahsil District Durg Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent __________________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 02/05/2019

1. The Applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 228/2018, registered at Police Station - Khursipar, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406/34 of the IPC.

2. As per prosecution story, complainant Taran Sharma lodged a report in police station, wherein, it has been alleged that in the year of 2014, the complainant has financed trucks for the consideration amount of Rs. 41,28,000/- bearing Registration Nos. CG 07 CA 9689 & CG 07 CA 9789, but, due to his weak economic condition he sold the said trucks to the applicant with a registered sale deed and taken amount of Rs. 5,65,000/- from him. As per the said sale deed, remaining installment was to be paid by the applicant who did not pay the installment and took the said truck with him. On the basis of said report, offence has been registered. The applicant is in custody since 06.12.2018.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. On the basis of evidence collected by the prosecution prima facie no offence can be made out against the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 06.12.2018 and trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with due care.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence collected by the prosecution and further considering the fact that the applicant is in custody since 06.12.2018 and trial is likely to take some time, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release him on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham