← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRCA/995/2016dismissed

Bhimrao Madame v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-12-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C.(A). No. 995 of 2016

1. Bhimrao Madame, S/o. Narbad Madame, aged about 46 years, R/o. Ambedkar Chouk, Shanti Nagar, Ward No.10, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ----Applicant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Station House Officer, Police Station - Khamtarai, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. J.K. Shastri, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Dy.Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 02/12/2016 1.

This is second bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.232/2015 registered at Police Station- Khamtarai, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), for offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The first bail application was dismissed on 25.04.2016 in M.Cr.C.(A) No.343/2016. 2.

As per the prosecution case, a report was made by one Yogesh Sharma that his son Tarun Sharma, Mukesh Sharma and nephew Pawan Sharma were allured to get job in the railways and one Anand Khobragadhe asked Rs.3 lakhs each and they were introduced with the applicant Bhimrao Madame and one Raju Mesham as the officers of the railways and subsequently amount of Rs.9.00 lakhs was paid for 3 persons. Subsequently, they were given forged appointment letters and later on it revealed that appointment letters were forged.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is not medically fit and made a prayer that in case the applicant

surrenders before the Court and applied for regular bail, then his bail petition may be decided on the same date. 4.

Perused the earlier dismissal order, wherein the bail application was dismissed on the statement of Tarun Sharma and Yogesh Sharma as the applicant was introduced as railway officers. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any justification to reconsider the bail application again. 5.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram