High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/8622/2016dismissed

Nahush Das Jangde v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-01-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C.No. 8622 of 2016 Nahush Das Jangde S/o Late Motilal Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Tahsil- Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. M. D. Dhote, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 11.01.2017

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. 413 of 2016 registered at City Kotwali, Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 469, 472, 120-B of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, one Sukumar Banjara lodged a report on 27.08.2016 that co-accused Rajesh Masih Gajanand Kurre have taken huge amount for providing job to the son of the complainant. Subsequently other persons namely Meghraj, Sudhir Tamboli & Rameshwar also came forward and stated that they have also paid certain amounts to the present applicant and they were assured by the present applicant and others that they will be provided job and thereafter forged appointment letters were issued, thereby the applicant with the connivance of other accused

Rajesh Masih and Gajanand have committed fraud.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that no report was made against the present applicant and only after the other persons came to know after a publication the statements have been made which are completely inadmissible, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

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

5. Perused the case diary and the statements of Meghraj, Sudhir Tamboli, Rameshwar and others wherein it is stated that the applicant has collected money from them to provide the job and different persons have also named the other accused also.

6. Considering the way the offence has been committed and after collecting money forged appointment letters were issued to the aspirants, I am of the view that it is not a case where the bail can be granted to the applicant. Accordingly, this application is rejected.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o