Shailesh Dubey, v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2775 of 2020 • Shailesh Dubey, S/o Dashrath Lal Dubey, Aged About 36 Years, R/o G. E. Road, Sirsagate Chouk, Police Station- Bhilai - 3, District- Durg Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Station House Officer, Police Station- Jamul, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Prabhakar Singh Chandel, Adv.

For Respondent/State : Mr. K. K. Singh, G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 02.06.2020

1. Default as pointed out by the Registry is overruled.

2. Heard on admission.

3. Admit.

4. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 227/2020 registered at Police Station- Jamul, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409/34 of IPC.

5. The prosecution story, in brief is that, it has been alleged that, a truck bearing Registration No. C.G. 07 BB 6149 has been financed by the complainant, due to failure to deposit the installment, vehicle has been stayed in the Hitech Parking Yard Raipur. The applicant and one other Ritesh Bagga are said to the complainant for selling such vehicle and amount would be

deposited in the company, thereafter the complainant sold the vehicle to Parabjeet Singh of Rs. 17 Lacs. The applicant transferred the advance amounting to Rs. 6,50,000/- in his account and prepared a forged N.O.C. of the finance company for returning the Dala to the complainant and he has transferred the vehicle from R.T.O Durg in the name of Parabjeet Singh by Ritesh Bagga and applicant and the rest of the amount of Rs. 10,40,000/- has been deposited in their accounts. Thereafter, offence has been registered against the present applicant and he has been taken into custody.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 03.05.2020, there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail.

7. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application and the submission made in this respect. It is submitted that the allegation against him is of serious in nature, therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

9. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, facts and circumstances of the case, and further considering the facts that the applicant is in jail since 03.05.2020 and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

10.Accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court.

11.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 23.03.2020 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 bonds afresh and the bail bonds already furnished shall be deemed to be the bail bonds furnished in compliance of the order of this Court, but if he has not furnished the bail bonds earlier, then he will be required to furnish bail bonds within four weeks from today.

12.Certified copy, as per rule.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi