Tejram @ Satish Jayaswal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC (A) No. 134 of 2017 Tejram @ Satish Jayaswal S/o Late Mendani Jayaswal Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bhaisama Police Station Urga, Tahsil & District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Deepka Quarter No. M.D. 502 Civil & Revenue District Bemetara- Chhattisgarh District Korba, Chhattisgarh. -----Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Deepka, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant :

Shri Ramakant Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Shri Ashok Swarnakar, Panel Lawyer.

For objector :

Shri Nitesh Shrivas, Advocate.

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

1. The applicant has filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.10 of 2017 registered at Police Station Deepika, Distt. Korba, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419, 463, 467, 468,471, 494, 495, 497, 192,199,194,196,198 and 200 IPC.

2. The allegation against the applicant as per prosecution is that, the applicant had initially married with Anjana and subsequently he is said to have again entered second marriage with Madhu Jaiswal. He is said to have interpolated service records and have pasted the photograph of second wife Madhu in place of photograph of Anjana. The present applicant is also said to have interpolated in the birth certificate of child borne from the subsequent wife showing the name of mother to be Anjana instead of Madhu Jaiswal. It is submitted that these are the bald allegations which have been levelled against the applicant and that the SECL Management had conducted a departmental enquiry and have

only found one of the charges to be proved which is the case of unbecoming of government employee and that the allegation of second marriage has not been established before the management, and therefore, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as objector opposes the bail application.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration nature of dispute which primarily seems to be a dispute between the present applicant and two ladies in his life and also taking note of the fact that applicant is an employee of public sector undertaking/SECL, this court is of the view that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting him and he shall abide by all the following terms and conditions:

1. That, the accused/applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required;

2. The accused/applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

3. The accused/applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

4. The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

5. Certified copy, as per rules.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder