Soniya Ramani v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1713 of 2019 • Soniya Ramani W/o Shri Tirath @ Bunty Ramani Aged About 33 Years R/o Sector 8 , Housing Board Colony, Saddu, Police Station Vidhansabha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Moudhapara, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Rahim Ubwani, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Anand Verma, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 16/01/2020
1. The applicant has filed this bail application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as she is apprehending her arrest in connection with crime no. 145/2019, registered at Police Station Moudhapara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 408 & 34 of the IPC.
2. As per prosecution story, Husband of the applicant Tirath Ramani being an employee of complainant Vijay Anand Sharma was incharge of making collection from various business customers and deposit the same in the account of the business concerned. It is further the case of prosecution that between 2016 to 2018, he has misappropriated the collections made from the customers and has embezzled the amount of Rs. 14 Lakhs. Allegedly, he deposited some embezzled amount to the account of his wife/present applicant. On the basis of said background, offence has been
registered.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that no case can be made out against the applicant, all allegations have been made against her Husband/co-accused Tirath Ramani who has already been granted benefit of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2019 passed in MCRC No. 5165/2019. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State opposes the bail application.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution, arguments advanced by both the counsel appearing for the parties and further considering the fact that all the allegations have been made against the co-accused Tirath Ramani who has already been granted benefit of regular bail by this Court. Without further commenting on other merits of the case, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case for grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
8. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting her and she shall abide by all the following terms and conditions:- I.
That the accused/applicant shall made herself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required;
II.
The accused/applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
III.
The accused/applicant shall not act, in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and IV.
The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham