Application for regular bail under section 439 CrPC rejected. Court found the accused executed a sale deed without payment despite claims of compromise; rent agreement contradicted this as no amount was received by the 85-year-old complainant, indicating evidence tampering.
Bail application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4930 of 2015
Vijay Singh Shakya, son of Hukum Singh Shakya, aged about 43 years, resident of Amapara ward No.12, Balod, Police Station Tahsil and District Balod, Chhattisgarh … Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh … Non-applicant
For the applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Omprakash Sahu, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order on Board
26 .11.2015
compromised. He submits that the charge sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 21.08.2015, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.
Sd/-
GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE
Rao
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant accused of cheating under section 420 IPC.
Whether the claim of compromise and payment of consideration is acceptable given the complainant's statement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Singh Shakya
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
