Raju @ Chandrika Paikra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3870 of 2019 • Raju @ Chandrika Paikra, S/o Jagsai, Aged About 24 Years, Caste Kunwar, R/o Village-Baghiyalongri, Tahsil Pathalgaon, Police-StationBaagbahar, District-Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Chowki Kotba, Police-Station - Baagbahar, District-Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent _____________________________________________________________ For Applicant :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Subhash Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 24/07/2019

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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.78/2019 registered at Police Station-Chowki-Kotba, Baagbahar, District-Jashpur(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 370 & 374 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') & u/s 9(1) of the C.G. Private Planning Agency Act, 2013.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is in jail since 06.04.2019. No case is made out against this applicant. The applicant was simply working as a 'Placement Agent'. He found placement for

Page No.2 the complainant but the remuneration was not paid to them for which this applicant cannot be held responsible. Hence, it is prayed that he may be enlarged on regular bail.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submissions made in this respect.

4. Heard both the parties and perused the case diary.

5. According to prosecution case, this applicant gave inducement to the complainants, that he will get job placement for them in Bangalore as a result the complainants accompanied him to Bangalore where they found placement. However, after working for some time they did not receive any remuneration and therefore FIR has been lodged.

6. For the reason that all the complainants in this case are major and had accompanied the applicant to find placement to the place and their grievance is only to this extent that no remuneration was paid to them by the employer company. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I feel inclined to allow the application of this applicant.

7. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed. Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nisha