High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/3092/2020rejected

Raman Robinson, v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

2020-06-12Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey5 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3092 of 2020 • Raman Robinson, S/o Late Shri Sukhdayal Ram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

MCRC No. 3044 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No. 03, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, MCRC No. 3067 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No.3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, MCRC No. 3074 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon,

• State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Dongargarh, MCRC No. 3096 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon MCRC No. 3100 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Dongargarh, MCRC No. 3102 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon MCRC No. 3105 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No.3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

MCRC No. 3108 of 2020 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Dongargarh, and MCRC No. 3112 of 2020 • Raman Robinson S/o Shri Sukhdayal Ram Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No.3 Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

For Applicant :

Mr. Vishnu Koshta, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Dinesh R.K. Tiwari, Dy. G.A. & Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 12/06/2020

1. Since in the aforesaid bail applications the applicant is one and the same, and the issue involved in all the bail applications is common, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The accused/applicant has moved these second bail applications under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him

on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime Nos. 505/2019, 526/2019, 514/2019, 523/2019, 525/2019, 504/2019, 512/2019, 518/2019, 521/2019 and 506/2019 in MCRC Nos. 3092/2020, 3044/2020, 3067/2020, 3074/2020, 3096/2020, 3100/2020, 3102/2020, 3105/2020, 3108/2020 and 3112/2020 respectively registered at Police Station - Dongargarh, DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 and 120-B of the IPC.

3. The first bail applications of the applicant were dismissed by this Court on 24.02.2020 on merit. The applicant is in jail since 02.12.2019 in MCRC No. 3092/2020, 02.12.2019 in MCRC No. 3044/2020, 15.10.2019 in MCRC No. 3067/2020, 22.11.2019 in MCRC No. 3074/2020, 02.12.2019 in MCRC No. 3096/2020, 15.10.2019 in MCRC No. 3100/2020, 02.12.2019 in MCRC No. 3102/2020, 15.10.2019 in MCRC No. 3105/2020, 02.12.2019 in MCRC No. 3108/2020 and 02.12.2019 in MCRC No. 3112/2020.

4. The allegation against the present applicant is that during his posting as Cashier in the Punjab National Bank in the year 2013, he obtained illegal benefit from the bank by involving the Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loan recipient in a criminal conspiracy and acquired such loan by fraudulently preparing false and forged revenue records in connivance with certain bank officials and shared the loan amount among themselves. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant.

5. 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 applicant was posted as head Cashier in the bank and the duty of the head cashier is of cash transaction. Being a cashier, it is neither the duty of the applicant to sanction the loan amount nor to verify the documents submitted for the purpose of sanctioning of loan amount and his duty is to disburse the loan amount to the recipients. There is no likelihood of his cases being decided in near future, therefore, the present appellant may be released on bail.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposing the bail application would submit that the first bail applications of the present applicant were dismissed by this Court and there is no changed circumstances in the present bail applications, therefore, no interference by this Court is required.

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

8. Taking into consideration the fact that the first bail applications of the present applicant were dismissed by this Court on merit, and there is no changed circumstances in the present bail applications, I am not inclined to release him on bail.

9. Accordingly, all the second bail applications of the present applicant are also rejected.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Vasant