Bhupendra Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 8143 of 2018 Bhupendra Sahu S/o Preet Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Boridkhurd ,post Office And Police Station Rudri District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer ,police Station City Kotwali ,district Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For the Applicant :

Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For the State :

Shri Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board /11/2018 1.

This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC and there is no bail application is pending before any other Court. 2.

Perused the case diary provided by the learned counsel for the State in connection with the Crime No.357/2018 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 120(B)/34 of IPC.

3.

Case of the prosecution, in brief is that complainant Hemin Bai had get Rs. 6 Lakhs due to demise of her husband late Jhaduram, who was the Head Master, from his office. Applicant was the agent of A.D.V. Credit Co-operative Society Limited Dhamtari. He hatched conspiracy that co-accused Mahavir Sahu. He allured the said complainant that if she may deposit the said amount in A.D.V. Credit Co-operative Society Limited Dhamtari then it would be tripled in the year 2022. Complainant had given Rs. 6 Lakhs to the applicant to deposit in A.D.V. Credit Co-operative Society Limited Dhamtari. Applicant had given him forged bond. Complainant enquired then she knew that no amount has been deposited in her name in A.D.V. Credit Cooperative Society Limited Dhamtari. Applicant had also executed an agreement on 03/10/2016. Despite of execution of such agreement he had not returned back the aforesaid amount to complainant. 4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has innocent and falsely implicated in the present case, therefore, he shall be released on bail.

5.

On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application. 6.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the seriousness of the alleged offence, looking to the impact of granting bail to the applicant on society, the present bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge Kamde