Murlidhar Yadav And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No. 8058 of 2019 1.
Murlidhar Yadav, S/o Shri Tankedhar Yadav, aged about 31 years, 2.
Danardan Yadav, S/o. Shri Ratan Ram Yadav, aged about 43 years, Both are By caste - Mahakul, R/o. Village - Chhatasarai, Ghuigoda, P.S. - Bagbahar, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) ---- Applicants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station - Bagbahar, Civil & Revenue Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) ----Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Anurag Verma, PL Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 28/01/2020 (1) The accused/applicants have moved this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 139/2019 registered at Police Station Bagbahar, Distt. - Jashpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120(B) of IPC. (2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a loan of Rs.
3,10,000/- has been sanctioned and issued in favour of the complainant Ganjhu Ram Nagwanshi by the Bank with connivance with other accused in the year 2013-2014 and the complainant came to know that the co-accused persons have demanded the Voter id card and ration cared along with other documents to provide him a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and also taken his signature in the Bank.
he made a complaint to the Collector and in the said application enquiry has been conducted and the co-accused person along with Bank Manager has been arrested and their memorandum statement was recorded in which the name of the applicant is appearing as assistance to the said act and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. (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 applicant is in jail since 05.10.2019 and the charge sheet has been filed and as trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, 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 detention period of the applicant, and further considering the fact that charge sheet has been filed and trial is likely to take some time for its fianl disposal, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release him 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.50,000/- with one local surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Dubey/-