Dismissed

Nohit Kumar Saket v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2016MCRC/3636/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The High Court refused release despite applicant's denial of receiving funds, noting admissions, large sums involved, existing bail rejection for a co-accused to several other persons involved, and dismissed the application. The matter was a first bail application.

What did the court decide?

The bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Nohit Kumar Saket Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

MCRC No. 3636 of 2016

¶3

Nohit Kumar Saket, S/o. Ramnath Saket, Aged About 48 Years, R/o. Village Durumgarh, Police Station Sarsiwa, District Baloda BazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶4

---- Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Sarsiwa, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Respondent

¶8

For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶9

Order On Board

¶10

01.08.2016

¶11

This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.61/2016 registered at Police Station- Sarsiwa, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶12

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant along-with other co-accused in order to provide Government job collected Rs.2,10,000/- from complainant Punnuram, but subsequently job could not be provided to him and thereby the aforesaid offence was committed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has not received the amount and infact the applicant had advanced money to the complainant which was not being returned and in

¶14

order to avoid the same, the false report has been made; therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and would submit that in the meeting which was held in the village, it was admitted by the applicant that he has received the amount, therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Perused case diary and the documents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that as much as Rs.10 Lacs has been received from different persons and further taking into fact that the bail application of the similarly placed co-accused has been dismissed, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶18

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶19

Ashok

Nohit Kumar Saket v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nohit Kumar Saket v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Latif Ahmed Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Pramila Hedau and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Saroj Awashti and Anr. Vs District Magistrate

Beniram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Suraj Tandon @ Golu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manish Rathod Vs State Of Chhattisgarh