Mohd. Ashraf Ansari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2860 of 2020 • Mohd. Ashraf Ansari S/o Mohd. Israil Ansari aged about 28 years, R/o Banjari Nagar, Bazar Chowk, Metal Park, P.S. Urla, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Khamtarai, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant :

Ms. Smita Jha, Adv.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Sameer Sharma, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 19/06/2020

1. 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. 585/2019 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that, the complainant lodged a complaint that the present applicant and co-accused person who is the finance ofÏcer in Megma Finance Company have executed sale deed agreement with fake document of complainant's truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JE-0571. Based on this offence has been registered against the present applicant and another co-accused person.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. She further submits that the present applicant is illiterate driver of the truck and he has only followed owner's order to receive some documents. She next submits that the applicant is in jail since 31.10.2019, there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the allegation against the applicant is of serious in nature; the applicant along with other co-accused person produced fake documents of the truck and executed sale deed, therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail.

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

6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, facts and circumstances of the case, detention period of applicant and further considering that the applicant is in jail since 31.10.2019, 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.

7. 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.

8. It is made clear that if the applicant has already been released on bail pursuant to the bail bond 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 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.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge H.L. Sahu