Kiran Kumar Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Sheet MCRC No. 7214 of 2017 (Arising out of Crime No. 231/2016 registered at PS-Durg, District- Durg, CG for the 420, 467, 468, 470, 471/34 of IPC and section 66(B), 66(D) of Information Technology Act) ...

Kiran Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Santram Dewangan, Aged About 35 Years R/o Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Camp - 2, Ward No. 22, Near Fal Mandi, Alankar Complex, Power House Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent 10.01.2018 Shri Y.C. Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant.

Shri Adhiraj Surana, Dy. G.A. for the State.

This is second bail application. The first one was dismissed on 01.09.2016.

As per the prosecution, one Lokesh Kumar Patil who is working in RTO made a report that between 29.02.2016 and 08.03.2016, RTO tax of 50 vehicles was paid by using his computer ID which he could discover on 09.03.2016 and on enquiry it was found that Rajesh Agrawal, RTO Agent and Rohit Sharma data entry operator of Smart Chip Pvt. Ltd., along-with applicant has committed such offence and forged entry was made by using the ID of Lokesh Kumar Patel. It is alleged that Kiran Kumar Dewangan, the present applicant who was working in Smart Chip Pvt. Ltd used the ID and password despite knowing the fact that he was not authorized, thereby the offence has been committed.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire tax has already been deposited and only vague allegations exists against the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 07.04.2016 and looking to the long period of detention, he may be released on bail.

Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

Perused the earlier rejection order dated 01.09.2016. it appears that the position existed earlier remains unchanged. Considering the same, I do not find any change of circumstances to reconsider the bail at this stage. Accordingly, it is rejected. Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o