Gajanand Kurre v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 1 of 2017 • Gajanand Kurre S/o Gajadhar Kurre, Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Dighora, Police Station & Tehsil Pathariya, Presently Residing At Soni Chal Karahi, Police Station & Tehsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 31.01.2017

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 amounts 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 has 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 as also the fact that the bail application of other accused namely Nahush Das Jangde against whom similar allegations were levelled has been rejected by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.8622 of 2016, I am of the opinion that it is not a case where the bail can be granted to the applicant. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao