High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/6174/2016dismissed

Vijay Navrang v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-11-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6174 of 2016 • Vijay Navrang S/o Sagun Navrang Aged About 50 Years Caste Satnami R/o Village Gopichandpara, Ward No. 17, Pandariya, Police Station Pandariya Civil & Revenue District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 02.11.2016

1. This is second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 209/2015 registered at Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of IPC. The earlier bail application (M.Cr.C. No. 6442/2015) was dismissed on 14.12.2015.

2. As per the prosecution case, a report was made on 22.09.2015 by the complainant that the applicant and other accused persons have received total amount of Rs.7,30,000/- from the different persons for providing jobs in different departments. However, neither the jobs were provided to them nor the money was returned. Consequently the offence was committed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the son of the applicant namely Prakash Navrang has been enlarged on anticipatory bail on 19.11.2015 in M.Cr.C(A).No.1104/ 2015 and the case of the present applicant is similar to that of his son, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail and would submit that the main allegations have been attributed to the present applicant.

5. Taking into the degree of allegations levelled against the applicant, I do not find any change of circumstances so far as it relates to the present applicant after rejection of his earlier bail application and though the son of applicant has been enlarged on anticipatory bail but the allegations levelled against him are different from that of his son. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o