Rominder Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No. 6986 of 2016 Rominder Singh, son of Amrik Singh, aged about 28 years, resident of Motipara, Durg, Police Station & Tahsil Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant Vs.

State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Supela, Distt. Durg (C.G).

Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Anupam Dubey, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 09.11.2016

1. This is first 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. 436 of 2011 registered at P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, a report was made by one Pankaj Dubey, Branch Manager of Shri Ram Transport Finance Company that the present applicant who was working as Field Officer had verified certain documents of RTO and the particulars of borrowers & guarantors before sanctioning loans by the Company to purchase vehicles and gave positive report and on that basis the Company had made finance of the vehicles to different borrowers. Subsequently when the loan was not repaid, it was found that the verification of the vehicles by RTO Agent and the verification of details of borrowers and guarantors were fake.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the

applicant has been falsely implicated and after sanction of loan, certain instalments have been paid by the loanees for repayment of loans. He further submits that only after completion of loan sanction process, the borrowers have received the amounts and purchased the vehicles, therefore, the applicant has not committed any offence of forgery. He further submits that the charge sheet in this case has been filed; no further investigation is necessary and the applicant is in jail since 03.08.2016, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail.

5. Perused the case diary and other documents.

6. Taking into the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and the evidence available in this case is documentary in nature as also the facts that the charge sheet in this case has been filed; no further investigation is necessary and the applicant is in jail since 03.08.2016, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. He shall also appear before the trial Court as and when directed by the said Court.

C.c.

as per rules.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o