Punaram Lahre v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No. 8134 of 2019 Punaram Lahre, S/o. Gaindram Lahre, aged about 33 years, R/o. Village - Karchuwa, Thana - Bemetara, Distt.- Bemetara (C.G.) ---- Applicant

Versus

The State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station - Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) ----Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Sameer Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 03/02/2020 (1) The accused/applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 539/2019 registered at police Station Bemetara, Distt. - Bemetara for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 461, 397, 409 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

(2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 5.10.2019, complainant namely Sankalp Sharme, Cash Manager, Service Location Incharge, Bemetara has lodged the report stating inter alia that when he and two other employees of State Bank of India, Bemetara Branch were going to fill- up the money in the ATM at Nawagarh, at that point of time, accused and two other co-accused persons came there in the Car and threatening him for dire consequences and looted a sum of Rs. 1,64,00,000/- from C.M.S. Cash Vehicle and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

(3) Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in

the crime in question as there is no incriminating evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the crime in question. He further submits that the applicant is in detention since 10.10.2019; and the charge sheet has been filed and no useful purpose would be served in further detaining him in jail and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. (4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that applicant has actively participated in the crime in question, which is evident from the CCTV footage located at the ATM premises and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. (5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection.

(6) Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence and the manner in which applicant has looted looted sum of Rs. 1,64,00,000/- from C.M.S. Cash Vehicle and threatened the complainant and two other employees of the State Bank of India for dire consequences if they interrupted for the alleged work of looting the money, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Thus, the bail application is rejected. Certified copy, as per rules.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Dubey/-