Ayodhya Prasad Gupta And Another v. The State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6574 of 2020 Rajesh Gupta, Aged About 26 Years, S/o Shri Ayodhya Prasad Gupta, R/o Village Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Darima Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent MCRC No. 8002 of 2020
1. Ayodhya Prasad Gupta, Aged About 55 Years, S/o Shri Banwari Gupta Caste- Baniya, Occupation- Business,
2. Smt. Geeta Devi, Aged About 50 Years, W/o Shri Ayodhya Prasad Gupta (wrongly typed as Adhodhya Prasad Gupta) Case- Baniya, Both are R/o Village Darima Chaukpara, P.S. Darima, TahsilAmbikapur, Distt.- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants
Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Darima, P.S. Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent MCRC No. 8541 of 2020 Ramcharan Harijan S/o Feku Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Saskaalo Police Station Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent For applicants - Shri Neeraj Mehta and Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocates.
For State -Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 16/12/2020 1.
All these bail applications are decided by this common order as they are arising out of the same crime number. 2.
The applicants have preferred these applications for grant of bail as
they are arrested in connection with Crime No.63/2020 registered in Police Station Darima, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) for offence punishable under sections 420, 419, 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3.
As per the prosecution case, a report was lodged by Anita Bai that the applicant in connivance with others allured the complainant to get the loan and assured them to pay back the same. Subsequently, the loan was availed in the name of the complainant but actually the beneficiary were the accused. Thereafter, certain repayment was made by the accused but rest of the repayment was not made by the accused. 4.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it was with the consent of the complainant the loan was availed and the applicants have not played any fraud and compromise has also been effected in between the parties. He would submit that charge sheet has been filed, applicants are in jail since 3/09/2020, 14/10/2020, therefore the applicants may be released on bail.
5.
Learned State counsel opposes the bail application. 6.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation and the fact that charge sheet has been filed, this court is inclined to release the applicants on bail.
7.
Accordingly, all the three bail applications are allowed and it is directed that the applicants shall be released on each of them furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned trial court for their regular appearance before it as and when directed.
Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE gouri