Sajju @ Sajjad Ahmed v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 8748 of 2018 • Sajju @ Sajjad Ahmed S/o Imamuddin Ahmed Aged About 30 Years R/o Masanganj, Near Masjid, Police Station Civil Lines, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant : Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Alok Nigam, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 08/01/2019

1. The Applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 244/2018, registered at Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 379/34 of the IPC.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 18-07-2018 complainant Ranjeet Kumar Kashyap lodged a report alleging that on the same day when he went to Rajiv Plaza and visited in a mobile shop for purchasing mobile phone, after returning to the shop, he found that his motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG 10 AD 3084 stolen by some unknown person. On the basis of said, offence has been registered. During course of investigation on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused, said motor-cycle has been seized from the possession of the co-accused Rashid Ahmad. Allegedly co-accused person Rashid Ahmed purchased the said motor-cycle from the present applicant and other co-accused persons. The applicant has been

arrested on 26-07-2018.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the co-accused Rashid Ahmad has already granted benefit of bail by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2018 passed in MCRC no. 6592/2018, The Applicant is in custody since 2607-2018, charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take some time. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence collected by the prosecution, further considering the fact that the other co-accused person has already granted benefit of bail by this Court, the Applicant is in custody since 26-07-2018 and trial is likely to take some time, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the Applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham