Manglu Yadav And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No. 2415 of 2017
1. Manglu Yadav S/o Nakul Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kathani, Police Station And Tehsil -Pusour, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
2. Keshav Saura S/o Late Dubraj Saura, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kathani, Police Station And Tehsil -Pusour, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh, DistrictRaigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent M.Cr.C. No. 3602 of 2017 Sunderlal Nishad S/o Late Shri Arkheet Nishad, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Lara, P.S. And Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Mob. No. 7389031882 ---- Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For the Petitioners :
Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State :
Shri O.P. Sahu, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
ORDER
23.10.2017 1.
Heard.
2.
Both these applications are decided by a common order as they arise from the similar matter. This is the first bail application of the applicants filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of
regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.543 of 2016, registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. One of the co-accused, namely, Ramesh Pradhan has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.2.2017 in M.Cr.C. No. 91 of 2017. The case of applicants - Keshav Saura and Sunderlal Nishad is similar to that of co-accused. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that at present with regard to the application for bail by applicant - Manglu Yadav, he does not want to press the application for bail of applicant No.1 - Manglu Yadav in M.Cr.C. No. 2415 of 2017, for the rest, it is submitted that they have been falsely implicated hence, they may be enlarged on bail.
4.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail applications and the arguments submitted in this respect and also submits that the applicants are not entitled for bail. 5.
Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary. 6.
As per the contents of the case, a land bearing Khasra No. 254, 660/4 measuring 1 acre 0.9 decimals belonged to one Jambo Bai and Applicant - Manglu Yadav forged some documents and got his name mutated in the revenue records to show him as the owner of the said land. The land was
transferred to one Arjun Singh by a registered sale deed and during the procedure, he came to know about the fraud committed and lodged FIR against the applicant and other accused persons. 7.
As per the contents of the diary and looking to the role played by the applicants Keshav Saura and Sunderlal Nishad, both of them deserve to be enlarged on bail. Hence, bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of Keshav Saura and Sunderlal Nishad are allowed and the application i.e. M.Cr.C. No. 2415 of 2017 insofar as it relates to Manglu Yadav, is rejected.
8.
It is directed that applicants Keshav Saura and Sunderlal Nishad shall be released on bail on each of them 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, for their appearance as and when directed. Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nimmi