Raman Robinson, v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3030 of 2020 • Raman Robinson, S/o Late Shri Sukhdayal Ram, aged about 56 years, R/o Ward No. 3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Applicant

Versus

• The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant.

:

Mr. Shobhit Kosta, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Ayaz Naved, G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 22.06.2020

1. Heard.

2. The applicant has filed this Second Bail Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 503/2019 registered at Police Station : Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34, 120B of the IPC.

3. The first bail application of the applicant was by the Hon'ble Court on 24.02.2020 passed in MCRC No. 269/2020.

4. The brief facts of the case are that, the applicant served as a cashier in Punjab National Bank, Bhandrapur Branch, District Rajnandgaon. The allegation against the present applicant is that he along with co-accused and bank ofÏcials, sanctioned

KCC loans in the name of various farmers by preparing forged and fabricated revenue records wherein there was no land available on spot and earned commission. After completion of investigation, offence has been registered against the applicant and he has been arrested.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the present applicant is the cashier and as per his duty, he is neither responsible for the sanctioning of loan amount nor for scrutinizing the documents and land records, therefore, he is not liable for the said offence. Applicant is in jail since 22.11.2019 and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions and directions, which may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court, therefore, he may be released on bail.

6. On the other hand, State counsel strongly opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant fraudulently obtained KCC Loan amount meant for farmer.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the case and further considering the fact that the applicant is a Government Servant (head cashier in Punjab National Bank) and the manner in which the

KCC loan is alleged to have been acquired and shared, at this stage, I am not inclined to release him on bail.

9. Accordingly, his application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Vijay Sahu