Vikku @ Vikram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 1202 of 2017 • Vikku @ Vikram S/o Gaindlal Rathore Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Girwar, Pollice Station Gaurela, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Mr. Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 15-03-2017 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 on 31-1-2017 in connection with Crime No. 390 of 2012, registered at Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 136, 139 of the Electricity Act and Section 379, 34 of the IPC.

2. As per prosecution case, on 28-12-2012 a report as made by the Junior Engineer, Electricity Department that on 30-10-2012, 840 meters of aluminum wire worth Rs.19,000/-- was stolen from 14 electric poles. Subsequently, other co-accused persons namely Kamlesh and Janak were arrested and on their memorandum statements, present applicant was also inculpated. Subsequently, present applicant was absconding and he surrendered before the court below on 31-1-2017 and thereby the aforesaid offence was committed.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the case is of 2012 and no seizure was made in person from the present applicant and only on the memorandum statements of other co-accused persons, present applicant has been falsely inculpated. He would further submit that chargesheet has been filed in this case, the applicant is in jail since 31-1-2017 and no further investigation is required, therefore, he may be released on bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and documents. Prima facie, it appears that no seizure was made in person from the applicant.

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that no seizure was made from the present applicant and also the fact that charge-sheet in this case has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 31-1-2017, 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 and it is directed that the 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. He shall also appear before the trial Court as and when directed. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju