D. Mahadevan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC NO. 5181 of 2015 D. Mahadevan S/o D. Veeranna, aged about 64 years, R/o: Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, P.S. Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Civil/Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station: Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Dist: Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Non-applicant For Applicant :

Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant :

Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 01/10/2015 1.

This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.371/2015, registered at Police StationBasantpur, Distt.Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC.

2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant obtained Rs.27,40,000/- from 28 complainants and issued appointment letters in their favour appointing them in Lanco Solar Private Limited. 3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the applicant was working as labour contractor with the said company and as the applicant is proprietor of M/s. Satya Sai Enterprises and when agreement was terminated, the dispute arose between him and labourers and it is purely a contractual dispute. He would also submit that the applicant is

in jail since 14.8.2015 and charge-sheet is yet to be filed and therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and submit that huge amount has been taken and forged appointment letters have been issued.

5.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case; further taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence and further taking into consideration the nature of allegation of taking huge amount i.e. Rs.27,40,000/-, this Court is of the opinion that present is not a fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail. 7.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is rejected.

8.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE B/-