Jasinta Kujur And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C.No.1688 of 2016

1. Jasinta Kujur, W/o Virendra Yadav, D/o Alvis Kujur, aged about 26 years,

2. Manohar Kujur, S/o Alvis Kujur, aged about 28 years, Both are Resident of Purushottampur, P.S.Ramanujganj, DistrictBalrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) ---Applicants

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh: Through: S.H.O. Balrampur, District-BalrampurRamanujganj (CG) ---Non-applicant For Applicants :

Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For Non-applicant :

Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 17/03/2016 1.

This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.20/2016, registered at Police Station-Balrampur, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34 and 120B of the IPC.

2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicants and co-accused Virendra Yadav obtained `2,85,000/- from complainant Manoj Singh for getting employment in the Police Department and thereby committed the offence.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the

applicants have not committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in crime in question. He would further submit that applicant No.1 is government servant working as Assistant Grade-III in District Office and applicant No.2 is an unemployed. It is Virendra Yadav to whom the amount is said to have been given and there is delay of one year in lodging the F.I.R. He would also submit that they are in jail since 19.2.2016 and charge-sheet has not been filed as yet. 4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and submit that it is Virendra Yadav who has assured the complainant to get employment and thereafter amount is said to have been paid.

5.

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

6.

Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, role of the present applicants, their pre-trial detention and extent of delay in lodging the F.I.R. i.e. more than one year and direct allegation is against co-accused Virendra Yadav, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the applicants should be enlarged on regular bail.

7.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.

8.

It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for

their appearance as and when directed.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE B/-