High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/865/2016rejected

Bhupendra Sao And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-03-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Misc. Criminal Case No.865 of 2016

1. Bhupendra Sao, S/o Netram Sao, aged about 23 years, R/o Village & P.O. Raikera, Tahsil & P.S. Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.)

2. Mukesh Mahant, S/o Bhagwan Das, aged about 23 years, R/o Village Pusalda, Tah. & Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Applicants

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicants:

Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate.

For Non-applicant:

Mr. Om P. Sahu, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 02/03/2016

1. The accused/applicants have moved this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No.348/2015, registered at Police Station Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that land of Mansingh Chauhan was sold by the present applicants and other co-accused to Sat Kumari and thereby committed the offence.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Charge-sheet has been filed and the applicants are in jail since 29-10-2015 and 21-11-2015, respectively.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the application

and submits that Chattar Singh impersonating himself to be Mansingh Chauhan, sold the land in question to Sat Kumari in which applicant No.1 is witness and applicant No.2 is master mind.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence, facts and circumstances of the case and role of the applicants, I do not consider it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants. The application is, therefore, rejected.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma