High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/3728/2016rejected

Sunder Prasad Sahu And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-07-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3728 of 2016

1. Sunder Prasad Sahu S/o Manbodh Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Bundeli, O.P. Rajgamar, Police Station Balco Civil & Revenue District - Korba Chhattisgarh

2. Kumar Sahu S/o Chamru Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Bundeli O.P. Rajgamar, Police Station Balco Civil & Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through Outpost - Rajgamar, Police Station - Balconagar, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh - Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. Mirza Keshar Beg, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 15.07.2016

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. 127 of 2016 registered by Police Outpost Rajgamar, P.S. Balco Nagar, Distt.Korba (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 09.05.2016 the complainant Bhukhan Lal Yadav who is the Postmaster of Bundeli Post Office withdrew an amount of Rs.1,11,000/- from the Post Office to make payment to the MGNREGA workers and at that time, the applicants alongwith other accused had intercepted him and looted the amount., therefore, the offence is committed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and no evidence is available against them. It is further submitted

that the charge sheet in this case has been filed, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail and submits that the applicants have been identified.

5. Perused the documents and case diary.

6. Considering the way the offence has been committed and the fact that the applicants have been identified and the alleged recovery was made from the applicants, I am not inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, it is rejected. Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o