Inderpal Singh Reenyal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1242 of 2020 • Inderpal Singh Reenyal S/o Gurcharan Singh Reenyal Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 50, Pujari Gali, Behind Gurudwara, Budhwari Para, Tahsil And Post Dongargarh, Dist. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Arjunda, District - Balod Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent _______________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Shri MPS Bhatia, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.

__________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 30/09/2020

1. Heard through video conferencing.

2. The applicant has preferred the first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 126/2020 registered at Police Station Arjunda, District Balod, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 188, 269, 270 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of Public Gambling Act.

3. According to the case of the prosecution, on 24.7.2020 at a place near village Mateva Khar, 20-25 persons including the present applicant were gambling in open field. Allegedly, when police reached the spot, present applicant alongwith other co-accused persons fled away from the spot and some accused persons were arrested. It is further

alleged that vehicle of the present applicant was seized from the spot. Thereafter, matter was reported and offence was registered.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that except offence under Section 188 of the IPC, all other offences are bailable. Other co-accused persons who were arrested by the police have already been granted bail. It is further submitted that present applicant was not found at the spot. Therefore, it is prayed that applicant may also be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application.

6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available.

7. Taking into consideration the submissions put-forth on behalf of the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution, without further commenting on other merits of the case, I am inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9.

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Presiding Officer of the concerned trial Court. He shall also

abide by all the following terms and conditions : (i) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court, (ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash