High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/3588/2017dismissed

Kanhaiya Lahare v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-07-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3588 of 2017 • Kanhaiya Lahare S/o Late Tejram Lahare, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Rounda, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Nandini Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Anupam Dubey, Dy. Govt. Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board .07.2017

1. This is second bail application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 234 of 2016 registered at Police Station Nandini Nagar, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G) for the offence punishable under sections 420, 410, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC.

2. The first bail application was dismissed on 05.01.2017 on merits.

3. As per the prosecution case, the land was sold by Manthir Ashwani, Anuj, Khediya, Dashoda, Khomlal, Banshilal and Thagiya in favour of Lalit Nayak and Dev Kumar and the sale deed was executed in respect of the land situated at village Kodiya and the amount was received by the said sellers. Subsequently, Lalit Nayak, the purchaser made a report that sale was routed through Manoj Soni, one broker and the amount of Rs.12,25,000/- was paid to Manoj Soni and one Farid Khan. Thereafter, it was revealed that one of the seller

Khomlal has died five years back and the sale deed was executed by false personification as the present applicant Kanhaiya Lahare who is son-in-law of Khomlal appeared as Khomlal. It is further alleged that the accused Haldhar Gupta had prepared seal of Tahsildar to prepare the forged documents from his printing press. Thereby the offence has been committed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no progress in the trial and th applicant is in jail since 30.08.2016, therefore, looking to the detention period, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

5. Considering the fact that the earlier bail application was dismissed on 05.01.2017 on merits, I do not find any substantial change of circumstances in this case and further no exorbitant delay appears to have been caused in progress of trial, at this stage.

6. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o