← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/9456/2020allowed

Raman Robinson, v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

2021-01-08Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey4 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 9378 of 2020 • Raman Robinson S/o Late Shri Sukhdayal Ram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No.3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent MCRC No. 9412 of 2020 • Raman Robinson S/o Late Shri Sukhdayal Ram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No.3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent MCRC No. 9419 of 2020 • Raman Robinson S/o Late Shri Sukhdayal Ram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No.3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent MCRC No. 9427 of 2020 • Raman Robinson S/o Late Shri Sukhdayal Ram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No.3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent MCRC No. 9451 of 2020 • Raman Robinson S/o Late Shri Sukhdayal Ram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No.3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

MCRC No. 9452 of 2020 • Raman Robinson S/o Late Shri Sukhdayal Ram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No.3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent MCRC No. 9453 of 2020 • Raman Robinson S/o Late Shri Sukhdayal Ram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No.3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent MCRC No. 9456 of 2020 • Raman Robinson S/o Late Shri Sukhdayal Ram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No.3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent MCRC No. 9459 of 2020 • Raman Robinson S/o Late Shri Sukhdayal Ram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No.3 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. Vishnu Koshta and Shobhit Koshta, Advocates.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Anand Verma, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 08/01/2021 Heard.

Admit.

1. Since in the aforesaid bail application the applicant is one and the same, therefore, they are being heard and disposed of together by this common order.

2. The accused/applicant has moved these third bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 508/2019 in MCRC No. 9378/2020, Crime No. 514/2019 in MCRC No. 9412/2020, Crime No. 511/2019 in MCRC No. 9419/2020, Crime No. 506/2019 in MCRC No. 9427/2020, Crime No. 526/2019 in MCRC No. 9451/2020, Crime No. 504/2019 in MCRC No. 9452/2020, Crime No. 512/2019 in MCRC No. 9453/2020, Crime No. 523/2019 in MCRC No. 9456/2020 and Crime No. 525/2019 in MCRC No. 9459/2020 registered at Police Station - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34, 120B of the IPC.

3. Earlier bail applications of the applicant were dismissed by this Court.

4. Brief facts of the case are that, the applicant served as a cashier in Punjab National Bank, Bhandrapur Branch, DistrictRajnandgaon. The allegation against the present applicant is that he along with co-accused and bank ofÏcials, sanctioned KCC loans in the name of various farmers by preparing forged and fabricated revenue records wherein in fact there was no land available on spot and shared the loan amount amongst them. After completion of investigation, offence has been registered against the applicant and he has been arrested.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the present applicant is the Cashier in the bank and, as per his duty, he is not responsible for sanctioning the loan amount. He also submits that as many as 23 FIRs of same allegation and same nature of offence were lodged against the present applicant. It has also been submitted that vide order dated 11.08.2020 passed in MCRC Nos. 1581/2020 and MCRC No. 1582/2020, the present

applicant and other co-accused persons have already been granted bail & vide order dated 07.01.2021 passed in MCRC No. 6200/2020, applicant namely Laddi @ Harpal Singh has been granted bail. Therefore, the present applicant may also be granted benefit of bail. He also added that the applicant is in jail since 02.12.2019, 15.10.2019, 22.11.2019, 02.12.2019, 02.12.2019, 15.10.2019, 02.12.2019, 22.11.2019 and 02.12.2019 in connection with Crime Nos. 508/2019, 514/2019, 511/2019, 506/2019, 526/2019, 504/2019, 512/2019, 523/2019 and 525/2019 respectively, there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the bail application submits that the applicant fraudulently obtained KCC Loan meant for farmers and shared the loan amount amongst them, therefore, benefit of bail may not be extended to the applicant.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in particular the detention period of applicant and further considering the fact that other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court, the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the applications are allowed.

9. Accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- - 50,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge H.L. Sahu