Sakhan And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3375 of 2016

1. Sakhan, S/o. Sohran Gond, Aged About 60 Years,

2. Gopin, S/o. Sabhal Sai Gond, Aged About 27 Years, Both are R/o. Village Chandreli, Police Station & Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicants

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jainagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicants :

Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 19.07.2016 1.

This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.248/2015 registered at Police Station- Jainagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 120(B) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicants pretended themselves to be Peer & Gabhar sold the land to one Purushottam and the account was opened in name of Peer & Gabhar and the amount was withdrawn by Sudama, therefore, the applicants in connivance with the other accused has committed fraud. 3.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and they were working as

labour in the Crusher Plant of Lalla @ Akash Pandey and they have only pressed their thumb impression. He further submits that Lalla @ Akash Pandey along-with Sudama Shrivastava have played the fraud and the applicants are innocent, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.

4.

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

5.

Perused the case diary and the documents. The documents would show that the sale deed was executed by this applicant in name of Peer & Gabhar which was subsequently handled by Sudama Shrivastava. Considering the nature of allegation and taking into the role played by the applicants, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail.

6.

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

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok