Rajaram Sarthi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 248 of 2017 • Rajaram Sarthi S/o Shri Hariram Sarthi, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Regada, Police Statin Chakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh, Civil & Revenue District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station, Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant For Applicant:

Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate For State:

Mr. Ashish Surana, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.Sam Koshy Order On Board 05.05.2017

1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.318/2016 registered at Police Station- Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.), for offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 511/34 of Indian Penal Code, the applicant has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that a report was made by the Hariram that the present applicant in connivance with other coaccused persons tried to obtain loan from Kisan Credit Card on the basis of the forged documents B-1, Rin Pustika of different farmers. Subsequently, when enquiry was made from the farmers, it was revealed that they have not applied for loan. Thereby, the offence has been committed.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that one of the coaccused person in Crime No. 316/2016 registered at Police

Station- Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District -Raigarh (C.G.) under identical sets of allegation have been granted anticipatory bail in M.Cr.C.A No. 1250/2016 vide order dated 02.03.2017. He further submits that the nature of the allegation levelled against the present Applicant is identical and that only difference is that the present Applicant has been made accused person in a separate Crime Number.

4. The learned counsel for the State does not dispute that the case of the present applicant is identical to that of Applicant in the MCRCA No. 1250 of 2016 namely Dilip Kumar Choudhary.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Taking into consideration the fact that under identical set of allegations co-accused namely Dilip Kumar Choudhary has been granted anticipatory bail, we are of the opinion that the present Applicant is also entitled for similar treatment. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the Applicant.

7. Accordingly, the MCRCA is allowed.

8. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the ofÏcer arresting him on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating OfÏcer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating ofÏcer as and when required;

(ii) that the 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 ofÏcer; (iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that 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.

9. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE kishore