Arun Kumar Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C.(A). No. 453 of 2016

1. Arun Kumar Gupta, S/o. Jilajeet Gupta, aged about 30 years, Occupation- Agriculture and Private Driver, R/o. Village-Chhichhor Umaria, P.S.- Pusaur, Tehsil - Pusaur, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ----Applicant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : District Magistrate, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 10/05/2016 1.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.29/2016 registered at Police Station- Pusaur, District - Raigarh (C.G.), for offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Karza Adhiniyam, the applicant has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail. 2.

As per the prosecution case, a complaint was lodged that father of the applicant, Jilajit Gupta had advanced the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/-, however, it could not be returned, therefore, on that count, the father of the applicant requested to leave his house on his motor cycle and while he gave him lift up to his house, the motor cycle was forcefully taken away by Jilajit Gupta alongwith this applicant.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that because of money transaction, the false averments have been made to avoid the repayment. It is further submitted that except oral and bald allegation, nothing has been substantiated. It is further submitted

Page No.2 that the complainant himself has left the motor cycle in the house of the applicant as he could not repay the loan and subsequently, report is made. Therefore, the counsel prays that the applicant may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4.

Per contra, the State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.

I have perused case diary and the statements. Perusal of statement would show that dispute arose out of monetary transaction and the record would show that similarly placed co-accused namely Jilajit Gupta has been released on anticipatory bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.(A) No.293/2016 vide order dated 22.03.2016. Considering the prima-facie background of the case and the nature of allegation and further considering the fact that similarly placed co-accused has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court, I am inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant as the custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be required in this case.

6.

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, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required;

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with

Page No.3 the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram