Avinash Chandrakar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C No. 7996 of 2017 • Avinash Chandrakar S/o D. D. Chandrakar, Aged About 28 Years R/o Laxmipara, Ward No. 3, Jamul Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jamul District Durg Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For the applicant : Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State :

Shri Anupam Dubey, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board 31.01.2018

1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 419/2017, registered at Police Station - Jamul, District - Durg, (C.G), for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120 - B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first bail application to the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn in M.Cr.C No. 7116/2017, order dated 22.11.2017.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case and he is in jail since 18.08.2017, in fact it is the applicant who himself has been cheated in the transaction. The applicant has simply signed as

witness on agreement between the complainant and the main accused. No case is made out against the present applicant, on the basis of the material present on the record of the prosecution case, hence, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application and submits that the applicant is attesting witness of the fraudulent transaction, which has taken place between the co-accused - Jeevnathan Nair and complainant, hence, there is clear evidence on the involvement of the applicant in commission of offence, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

4. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.

5. Complainant has lodged FIR against the applicant that he had paid Rs. 22, 83, 000 /- for purchasing a plot with construction to co-accused Jeevnathan Nair and Vashu Dev, thereafter, the deceived the complainant that he will get better house to purchase and then the plot and house alloted and meant for him was sold out for Rs. 20 lakhs to other persons. Subsequent to that co-accused Jeevnathan Nair entered into an agreement with the complainant for sale of one house for construction Rs. 41 lakhs. The applicant came to know the subject - matter of the transaction was already sold out previously. On this basis the FIR has been lodged.

6. Considered, taking into consideration all the materials in the case diary and particularly considering this fact, the role played by this applicant in this case, in the subsequent transaction that has taken place between co-accused - Jeevnathan Nair and the complainant, this Court is of the

opinion that this is a fit case, where the applicant is entitled for grant of bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a 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.

Sd /- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Jamal