Sunit Kasde v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4982 of 2016 Sunit Kasde (Wrongly Mentioned As Kadse) S/o Late Laxman Kasde, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Balco Sector House No. 39/ A, Balco Colony, Thana Balco, Civil & Revenue District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Champa, Civil & Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. (As per charge sheet) ----Respondent And MCRC No. 4997 of 2016 Sunit Kasde (Wrongly Mentioned As Kadse) S/o Late Laxman Kasde, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Balco Sector House No. 39/ A, Balco Colony, Thana Balco, Civil & Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Bodhghat, Jagdalpur, Civil & Revenue District Bastar Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For applicant - Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent/State - Shri Anil S. Pandey and Shri Neeraj Jain, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 26/09/2016 1.
The applicant has preferred these applications for grant of bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.366/2014 registered in Police Station Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 409 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 66 (C), 66 (D) of IT Act and Crime No.360/2014 registered in Police Station Bodhghat, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) for offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 472, 419, 420, 409, 119, 182, 211, 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2.
As per the prosecution case, the applicant alongwith other
co-accused while working as a contractor in CSPDCL submitted forged bill and withdrew initially an amount of Rs.4,62,243/- and then Rs.24,87,871/- and total amount thereafter in different crime number withdrew Rs.1,49,79,513/-.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the bill cannot be forwarded and sanctioned without the ID proof and the compute ID entry. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the applicant may be released on bail.
4.
Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and would submit that the applicant alongwith other co-accused in different case at the different stage by using forged ID and fabricated signature with the help of the other co-accused has withdrawn huge amount. He submits that bail of the similarly placed co-accused persons have been dismissed by the coordinate bench of this court in M.Cr.C. Nos. 5203, 5204, 5206 and 5239 of 2015 on 6/10/2015.
5.
Perused the case diary and the documents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the way the offence has been committed, huge public money has been withdrawn and also for the fact that bail of the similarly placed co-accused persons have been dismissed vide M.Cr.C. Nos. 5203, 5204, 5206 and 5239 of 2015, this court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
6.
Accordingly, both the bail applications are dismissed. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE gouri