Vijay Navrang v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6442 of 2015 Vijay Navrang S/o. Sagun Navrang, Aged about 50 years, Caste Satnami, R/o. Gopichandpara in Ward No. 17, Pandariya, Police Station Pandariya, Civil and Revenue District Kabirdham (C.G.) ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Pandariya, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. O.P. Sahu, Govt. Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 14/12/2015 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. 209/2015 registered at Police Station- Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 /34 of IPC. 2.

As per the prosecution case, a report was made on 22.09.2015 by the complainant that the applicant and the other co-accused persons have received total amount of Rs. 7.30,000/- from the different persons for providing job in the different departments. However, the job was not provided to them nor the money was returned. Consequently the offence was committed. 3.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits through the money was taken in the year 2013 and the report was

made in the year 2015. He further submits that the complainant and the applicant are the relatives and initially the report was made against Amar Jangade as the money was paid to him and no action has been taken against Amar Jangade as he received Rs. 3,00,000/- from the present applicant for providing job.

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

5. Having regard to the fact and the statement of Maniram wherein he has categorically stated the present applicant has taken Rs. 1.40,000/- from him for providing the job, this Court is of the opinion, that present is not a fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Santosh