Smt. Sunita Vishwakarma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 508 of 2018 Smt. Sunita Vishwakarma W/o Shri Anil Vishwakarma Aged About 54 Years R/o Sadak, S.P.A., House No. 23A, Sector-5, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Incharge Anjora, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :
Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For State :
Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, G.A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 20/07/2018 1.
This is anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing the applicant in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No. 127/2018 registered at Police ChowkiAnjora, Police Station- Pulgaon, District- Durg (C.G.), for commission of offence punishable under Sections 406 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
2.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a matter of unregistered partnership in which three persons namely Sangeeta James, Sunita Vishwakarma & Sandhya Sancheti were partners and the partnership is terminated later on.
3.
He further submits that a case under Section 406 of IPC is registered for breach of trust but, there is no prima facie case as to who trusted the money in favour of the applicant and no record is found to establish that the applicant was handed over with money which has been misappropriated by the present applicant. He
further submits that there is arbitration clause of dispute between the partners and therefore, the matter pertains to civil liability and therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant. 4.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that as per balance-sheet and statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. prima facie offence under Section 406 is made out.
5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection.
6.
Looking to the fact that no bank account was operated by the present applicant and no amount was withdrawn by the applicant from account of the said partnership firm. Without further commenting on the merit of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, she shall be released on bail by the officer arresting her on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting her or the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :- (i) that she shall make herself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that she shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer; (iii) that she shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
(iv) that she shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that in case of change of address she will inform new address to investigating agency.
Sd/- (Ram Prasanna Sharma) Judge Arun