Roopnarayan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 7872 of 2016 • Roopnarayan S/o Sundar Ram Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Kot, Police Station Lundra, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lundra, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Mr.Neeraj Jain, Govt. Advocate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 14-12-2016 1.

This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 18-9-2016 in connection with Crime No. 71 of 2016, registered at Police Station Lundra, District Sarguja (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34, 120(B) of the IPC. 2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a written report was made by Vashist Painkra on 18-3-2016 that in order to provide job to him and other persons some amount was paid to Ravindra who was authenticated by the present applicant, who is a teacher, thereafter Ravindra took them to Raipur and met one Ajay Chandrakar who himself personified as IAS and they were assured that they will get employment. Consequently, Rs.22,00,000/- was given to Ravindra. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, the entire amount was received by Ravindra and the incident happened in connivance with one

Ajay Chandrakar. The allegation against the applicant is that he introduced Ravindra to the complainant and he has not played any role. The transaction was carried out by the complainant and Ajay Chandrakar. He would further submit that charge-sheet has been filed in this case, the applicant is in jail since 18-9 -2016 and no further investigation is required, therefore, he may be released on bail. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and other documents.

6.

Perused the statement of the complainant wherein it is alleged that the applicant introduced Ravindra to the complainant and the entire amount was paid to Ravindra and other persons.

7.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations leveled against the applicant and further considering the statement of the complainant and also the fact that charge-sheet in this case has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 18-9-2016, this court is inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju