Rajeev @ Raju Bhosle And ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 9325 of 2018 1.

Rajeev @ Raju Bhosle S/o Shri Shrawan Bhosle Aged About 33 Years R/o Rawatpura Colony, Behind Rajesh Kirana Stores, Bhatagaon, Police Station- Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2.

Rakesh Bhosle S/o Shri Shrawan Bhosle Aged About 29 Years R/o Rawatpura Colony, Behind Rajesh Kirana Stores, Bhatagaon, Police Station- Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3.

Rahul Bhosle S/o Shri Shrawan Bhosle Aged About 26 Years R/o Rawatpura Colony, Behind Rajesh Kirana Stores, Bhatagaon, Police Station- Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Gol Bazar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant For Applicants : Shri Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate.

For Non-applicant : Shri I.Lakra, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board 09.01.2019

1. This is second bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicants before this Court. No other bail application is pending before any other Court.

2. Perused the Case Diary provided by the learned counsel for the State in connection with crime No. 42/2018 registered at Police Station - Gol Bazar, Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the applicants are proprietor of Bhosle Consultancy. The applicants had taken huge amount from 24 persons and executed agreement for giving delivery of possession of super built houses, but later the applicants did not fulfill their promises and did not give possession of the super built houses to the concerned complainants nor returned back the money taken from them.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicants are in jail for a long period. Applicants are ready to execute the registered sale deed. Matter will be compromised if the applicants would come out from bar.

5.

He drew my attention on photographs Annexure D-1, general notice Annexure -2 and submitted that to execute the registered sale deed it is necessary that applicants are released on bail. Thus, they may be released on bail.

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

7. Earlier, the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court on 07.09.2018 in MCRC No. 5975 of 2018 considering the merits of the case. 8.

There is no change in circumstance which may entitle the applicants to be released on bail in second round.

9. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. 10.Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) JUDGE kishore