Gurudatt Gabhel v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Page No.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 3932 of 2016 Gurudatt Gabhel, S/o. Shri Ram Sai Gabhel, aged about 45 years, R/o. Village and post Devi, Tahsil - Sakti, District - Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) ---- Applicant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Station House Officer, Police Station - Kusmunda, District - Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant :
Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate For Respondent :
Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 22/07/2016 1.
This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 71/2016, registered at Police Station- Kusmunda, District - Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406/34 of Indian Penal Code. 2.
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a report was made by one Ram Kumar Rathore that at the instance of the applicant, he went along-with the applicant to Nagpur and thereafter he along-with other invested Rs.59.00 lakhs in the company namely Smart Vision and Fisheries Mart with a promise to get the amount doubled within a period of 7 months. Subsequently, the same having not been
Page No.2 done, the report is made and the money circulation is without the promise of R.B.I. or SEBI.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant - Gurudatt Gabhel was not in helm of affairs of the company and he is only working as an agent and he himself has deposited the money, which is evident from the document filed along with the bail application. It is further submitted that the applicant is working as Shiksha Karmi and no offence has been committed by him, chargesheet in this case has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 16.05.2016, therefore, the counsel prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
4.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6.
Perused the statements of Ram Kumar Rathore and Rakesh Kumar Sharma, wherein it is stated that they have deposited the money in the company which is owned by Vijay Pusdekar. Considering the role played by the applicant and the fact that the applicant himself has deposited the money and further considering the fact that the applicant was not principally liable for any policy decisions of the Company, further considering the status of the applicant and the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 16.05.2016, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7.
Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Page No.3 8.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the 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.
9.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram