High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/7228/2015rejected

Bhamendra Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-12-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 7152 of 2015 • Anjan Chatopadhyay S/o Lohitas Chatopadhyay Aged About 52 Years R/o High School Road, Gariyaband, P.S. Gariyaband, Distt. Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Though Police Station Gariyaband, Distt. Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. Afroz Khan, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Omprakash Sahu, Panel Lawyer MCRC No. 7228 of 2015 • Bhamendra Kumar Sahu S/o Bedram Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/O Village - Kurud (Pandhuka), Thana Pandhuka, Revenue & Civil District - Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through Officers -In -Charge, Police Station Gariyabandh, District - Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. Sanjeev Sahu Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Omprakash Sahu, Govt. Advcate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 21.12.2015

1. These are two bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicants in connection with Crime No. 115/2015 registered at P.S. Gariyabandh, Distt. Gariyabandh (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 of IPC.

2. Since both these applications are relating to the same crime number, they are decided together by this common order.

3. As per the prosecution, the applicants along-with other coaccused on the pretext of providing job to different persons in the health department have received an amount of Rs.15 - 16 lakhs and thereafter issued forged appointment letters.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and there is no evidence available against them and on the memorandum statements, the applicants have been inculpated on the basis of week type of evidence.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the bail application of similarly placed co-accused Shivji Yadav has been rejected by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.6890/2015 decided on 14.12.2015.

6. Perused the statements of Dinesh Yadav, Lokesh Kumar and other witnesses. A perusal of the statements would show that in lieu of providing jobs, the applicants have jointly received amounts from different prospective candidates and after receiving the amounts, issued forged letters.

7. Considering the nature of offence and the degree of allegations levelled against the applicants and the way in which the offence committed and the fact that the bail of similarly place co-accused has been rejected by this Court in M.Cr.C.No. 6890/2015, I am not inclined to allow these bail applications. Accordingly, M.Cr.C.No.7152/2015 and M.Cr.C. No.7228/2015 are rejected.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao