Sanjay Paraste v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2214 of 2017 Sanjay Paraste S/o Shyam Lal Pareste Aged About 35 Years R/o Rahangi, Indrapur, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through: The District Magistrate, Bilaspur Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For applicant Mr. Anukul Biswas, Adv.

For Respondent/State Mr. Anil Pandey, GA.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai Order On Board 19/04/2017

1. Heard finally.

2. The applicant has preferred this application for grant of bail as he is arrested on 23-3-2017 in connection with Crime No. 114/2017 registered in PS Sirgitti, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) for offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the first offender. He was falsely implicated when wife of the applicant gave a written report to the Superintendent of Police for false implication of her husband by the Head Constable Dinesh Tiwari, thereafter the police Constables were sent to Line after considering seriousness of the matter. The applicant is working under the authority of one Kolkata Andhra Road Lines and when loaded trucks used to enter the city limit, he as directed gives them white card so that if they wish, they may load material in their truck in return. He is falsely implicated. Hence he may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that on 23-3-2017 named FIR has been lodged against the present applicant as he was presenting himself as a police officer

and giving white coupon and recovering Rs. 800/- per vehicle illegality. During investigation, 7 entry coupons, bilty of the trucks and Rs. 5,960/- has been seized along with ID card and Adhar Card. As per FIR and the investigation till date, the applicant falsely introduced himself as police officer and took money to the tune of Rs. 800/- per vehicle illegally and after the FIR lodged on 23-3-2017, on 28-3-2017 wife of the applicant gave a written report to counter the facts surfaced against the applicant. Hence bail may be rejected.

5. Perused the entire material.

6. On due consideration of entire facts particularly the fact that written complaint by the wife of the applicant is lodged after 5 days of lodging of the FIR, seizure from the applicant and registration of crime against the present applicant for his role surfaced in the FIR, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

7. Consequently, instant MCRC is dismissed.

Sd/- (Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) Judge Pathak