Amar Lal Lautre & ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2641 of 2018

1. Amar Lal Lautre S/o Laduram Lautre, Aged About 35 Years R/oVillage- Banjari, Thana/ Tahsil- Chhuriya, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

2. Kartikram S/o Nirbhay Ram Pardhi, Aged About 35 Years, R/oVillage- Maditarai, Thana/ Tahsil- Dongargarh, DistrictRajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicants

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For the Applicant :

Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate For the State :

Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board /05/2018

1. This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC and there is no bail application is pending before any other Court.

2. Perused the case diary provided by the learned counsel for the State in connection with the Crime No. 303/2017 registered at Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 454, 380/34 of IPC.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that complainant Kriparam is resident of Maditarai. He is the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 373/1, area 0.45 acre, Khasra No. 373/2 area 0.17 acre and Khasra No. 373/3, area 0.28 acre. On 19/01/2016 his son Jeevan, applicants Amar Lal Lautre, Kartik Ram, co-accused Kushal Nandeshwar.

Yogesh Verma hatched a conspiracy Jeevan executed the registered sale deed of said land in favour of co-accused Kushal Nandeshwar for consideration of Rs.1,40,000/-. In the sale-deed Jeevan represented himself as Kriparam. Before execution of sale-deed Jeevan stolen the Rin Pustika of his father Kriparam. Applicants are the witnesses of the sale-deed in question.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case and the applicants are in jail since 19/12/2017, therefore, they shall be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the seriousness of the alleged offence and also the impact of granting bail on the society, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicants.

7. Consequently, the MCRC is dismissed.

Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge Kamde