Lalla Mahant @ Jitendra Das v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR • MCRC No. 3673 of 2020 • Lalla Mahant @ Jitendra Das S/o Shri Kalidas Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Dongaghat, P.S. And Tehsil Champa, District- JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant.

: Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 15.7.2020

1. Heard on admission.

2. Admit.

3. The applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.217/2020 registered at Police Station : Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 511, 427, 34 of the IPC.

4. The brief facts of the case are that in the night of 30.4.2020, the applicant along with other co-accused persons broke open the shutter of the Punjab National Bank, Madwa, District Janjgir Champa(CG) and entered in to the Bank and cut the power of CCTV cameras and broke the Almirah and tried to commit theft of the Bank money. The applicant was caught by the villagers in the Bank and thereafter he was arrested on the spot.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submits that house of

the applicant is around 12 km away from the place of incident and it is highly improbable to believe that the applicant could travel to the distance of 12 km and reach their without coming in notice to the police team. He further submits that as the applicant is in custody since 30.4.2020 and yet charge sheet has not been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, therefore, he may be released on bail.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application. He submits that the applicant is a habitual offender and he has tried to commit similar offences in other banks also.

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

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the nature of offence and further considering the fact that the applicant is a habitual offender and he has also tried to commit similar offences in other banks, I am of the opinion that present is not a fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail.

9. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

10. Certified copy, as per rules.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge sunita