High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/3376/2016allowed

Vinod Kumar Bambola v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-07-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3376 of 2016 • Vinod Kumar Bambola S/o Mevalal Bambola Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Gauri Nagar, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Janjgir, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Shobha Kashyap Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 07.07.2016

1. This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 136/2016 registered at P.S. Baradwar, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 409 & 420/34 IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, Bhoomi Devcon & Agritech Ltd., Rajnandgaon has floated different Schemes to give lucrative interest on deposits and the amounts deposited will be doubled within a short period of time with interest and in the alternative, the land would be given. On such promise/pretext, the deposits were collected by the Company but after some time, the Company was closed and every one fled away. The allegation is that the applicant was working as an agent of the Company and collected the amounts from various depositors on behalf of the Company.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant himself was working as an agent in the Company and as an

agent, he has not taken any policy decisions with respect to the Company and the entire policy decisions were taken by Managing Director/partners namely Lal Chand, Radha Bai, Ghasi Ram, Sanjay Kumar and Kaushal Prasad, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail. However, she do not dispute the fact that the applicant was working as an agent in the Company and has not participated in taking decisions on principle policy.

5. Perused the case diary and documents.

6. Considering the allegations made against the applicant and the role played by him as he was working as an Agent and has not participated in taking policy decisions of the Company, I am inclined to release him on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. He shall also appear before the trial Court as and when directed by the said Court.

C.c. as per rules.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o