Vyasmuni Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6315 of 2018 • Sabir Ansari S/o Shri Shaukat Ali Aged About 52 Years OccupationAgriculturist, R/o- Village- Ganjar, P.S.- Ramchandrapur, Tahsil- Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through- Incharge Police Station Lundra, DistrictSurguja, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent MCRC No. 7205 of 2018 • Vyasmuni Yadav S/o Lalji Yadav Aged About 45 Years, Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village Ganjar Police Station Ramchandrapur Tahsil Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through - Incharge Police Station Lundra District Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicants :

Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Aditya Sharma, PL for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 11/10/2018

1. Since both these bail applications are arising out of the same crime number therefore, they are being heard and decided together by this common order.

2. These are the First Bail Applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested on 28.07.2018 and 20.08.2018 in connection with Crime No. 18/2013 registered at Police Station Lundra, Distt. Surguja (C.G) for the offences punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC.

3. As per the prosecution case, the present applicants in connivance with the Patwari and other revenue officers and another person in between 26.10.1998 and 07.12.1999 converted the forest land of the area 283.73 hectares to private lands and recorded the same in the name of the different villagers in revenue records, thereby the offence has been committed. Thereafter the villagers had given Power of Attorney in the name of Shabir Ansari. Both the accused in their memorandum statements have named each other namely Sabir Ansari and Vyasmuni Yadav.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the similarly placed co-accused have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court and the incident is of the year 1998, therefore, the applicants may be released on bail.

5. Learned State counsel do not dispute the fact that the similarly placed coaccused have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court i.e. Ramashray Singh in M.CR.C.A. No.1296 of 2016 on 03.03.2017 and Ravindra Kumar Sharma in M.CR.C.A. No.488 of 2013 on 18.06.2013.

6. Considering the fact that the similarly placed co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail and all the evidence appear to be documentary in nature and

further taking into that the applicants are in jail since 28.07.2018 and 20.08.2018, respectively, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail.

7. Accordingly, both the bail applications are allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They are directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said Court.

Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu