Narendra Kumar Ratre v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 5852 of 2016

1. Narendra Kumar Ratre, S/o. Premsai Ratre, aged about 40 years, R/o. Village-Pahanda, Post - Tilkeja, Police Station - Urga, Tehsil and District - Korba (C.G.).

Present R/o. LIG 74 Shivaji Nagar Korba, Tehsil and District - Korba (C.G.) ----Applicant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : District Magistrate, District - Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Jhanwar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 28/09/2016 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.222/2016, registered at Police Station - Kotwali, Chowki- Rampur, District - Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that a report was made by Amir Anant in the year 2014 that the applicant in order to provided job to the complainant in Jindal Power & Steel Plant obtained an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant was given appointment letter, pay slip, terms of appointment and gate pass and when he wanted to join, it was found to be forged, thereby fraud has been committed.

Page No.2 3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the incident is of 2014 and the report is made on 2016 and no explanation of delay in lodging the FIR has been given. He further submits that bio-data, which was recovered from the possession of the applicant was for the reasons that the applicant was proprietor of N.R. Construction Company and the people have submitted their bio-data to get a job. It is further submitted that charge-sheet in this case has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 16.05.2016, therefore, the counsel prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

5.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6.

Perused the case diary, documents and statement. Perusal of the documents and statement shows that the applicant has provided with the fake appointment letter and other documents to the complainant. Considering the same, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

7.

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

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram