Mukund Pal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2902 of 2018 Mukund Pal S/o Dujeram Pal Aged About 28 Years R/o- Village Kolar, Tehsil Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through- Police Station Supela, DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For the applicant :

Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate.

For the Respondent :

Mr. Anil Pillai, Dy. A. G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board .0 5 .2018

1. This is Second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 684/2016 registered at Police Station Supela, Distt. Durg (C.G) for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The first bail application was dismissed on 06.01.2017.

3. As per the prosecution case, a report was made by the complainant Bairagi that he entered into an agreement for purchase of land with Visnhu Lodhi and paid an amount of Rs.4 lakhs and thereafter it was revealed that actually the said land does not belong to Vishnu Lodhi and Vishnu Loadi was impersonated by Nehru Lodhi and forged document was prepared whereby the said amount was paid. During investigation, on the memorandum statement of Nehru Lodhi, it was revealed that present applicant Mukund Pal had

prepared forged Rin Pustika, stamp and seal and he used to supply the same to different persons and thereafter certain articles were seized from the present applicant and thereby the aforesaid offence was committed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that till date only one witness has been examined and the applicant is in jail since 31.08.2016 and there is no evidence against him. He further submits that there is enormous delay in conclusion of trial and looking to the detention period of the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. However, he is unable to dispute the fact of delay in process of trial.

6. Considering the fact that the trial is not concluded till date, the appellant is in jail since 31.08.2016 and the charge sheet has been filed, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. C.c.

as per rules.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o