← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRCA/95/2017dismissed

Smt. Anusuiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-05-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC (A) No. 95 of 2017 Smt. Anusuiya W/o Nandkeshwar Singh, aged about 38 years, Caste Gond, R/o Village Silfili, Police Station Jainagar, Tehsil & District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

-----Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Jainagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant :

Ms. Neha Verma, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Shri B.Gopa Kumar, Deputy AG.

For Objector :

Shri Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 18/05/2017

1. The applicant has filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail as she is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.2 of 2017 registered at Police Station Jainagar, Distt. Surajpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC.

2. The allegation against the applicant, as per prosecution is that, the applicant in the capacity of Rozgar Sahayika, is said to have duly verified/certified the muster-roll prepared by the Sarpanch of the village and thereafter the amount has been credited to the respective accounts. However, it has been found that two persons namely Mohar Lal and Smt. Lalmaen Rajwade had infact not worked during the relevant period of time and subsequently after the amounts are credited to their accounts, the applicant and other co-accused is said to have sent one

Ram Narayan for obtaining their signatures for withdrawal of the money which was credited to their accounts and on the basis of which money has been withdrawn.

3. The role attributed to the applicant was to the extent of verification of the muster-roll in the capacity of Rozgar Sahayika. It was also her duty to supervise the work performed under the Rozgar Guarantee Yojna. Thus, taking into consideration the nature of allegation and specific role attributed by the applicant, this court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder