Rameshwar Pal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3085 of 2017 • Rameshwar Pal S/o Asha Ram Pal, Aged About 35 Years Caste Gadariya, R/o Village Karahibazar, Police Chowki Karahibazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent MCRC No. 1972 of 2017 • Vinod Patel S/o Banshidhar Patel, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Dhuma, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police, Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For applicant Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Adv. (MCRC No. 3085/2017) For applicant Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. (MCRC No. 1972/2017) For Respondent/State Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai Order On Board 19-7-2017

1. As both the above MCRCs arise out of same crime number and incident, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The applicants have preferred these applications for grant of bail as applicant Rameshwar Pal is arrested on 17-12-2016 and applicant Vinod Patel is arrested on 8-12-2016 in connection with Crime No. 283/2016 registered in PS Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) for offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that after investigation, police has filed charge sheet which is pending before the JMFC, Bilaspur, CG as Criminal Case no. 34/2017. Complainant Ramnarayan Prasad gave a written report on 10-11-2016 in which he

alleged that both the applicants have take Rs. 5 lacs in the pretext of his employment in the railway. Allegation is false. The complainant is relative of accused Vinod Patel and but for the presence of Rameshwar Pal on the spot, there is no allegation against Rameshwar Pal. They are in jail since long. Applicant Vinod Patel is also falsely implicated as the applicant Vinod Patel was present in the house of complainant Narayan in a Puja conducted by one Baiga and as complainant was not successful in the said Puja so as to enable him to employ in railway, he made false allegation hence both the applicants may be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and submits that categorically the complainant levelled charges against both the applicants that they by giving assurance for employment in the railway cheated and taken Rs. 5 lacs and thereafter neither the money was returned nor he was employed as assured.

5. Perused the entire material.

6. On consideration of allegation levelled against both the applicants, without commenting anything on the merit, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicants.

7. Consequently, instant MCRCs are dismissed. Sd/- (Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) Judge Pathak