In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Chhattisgarh considered the gravity of the offence involving cheating and forgery. The court allowed the application, observing that the charge sheet was filed and the disputed amount had been paid.
Bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety in like sum.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
M. Cr. C. No. 877 OF 2016
Keshav Ram Sahu son of late Jagatram Sahu, aged about 40 years, resident of Block No.7, Road No.3, Sector-5, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)
---Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.)
---Non-applicant
For Applicant : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
05/04/2016
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 579/2015, registered at Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 413 of the I.P.C.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, applicant is
2
said to have purchased Tata Indica Vista from the complainant- Ranjit Prasad and paid Rs.30,000/- and promised to pay balance amount in installments to the Tata Motors Finance Limited but he failed to pay said balance amount and thereby committed aforesaid offence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. She would further submit that now the entire amount with Tata Motors Finance Limited has been paid on 31/03/2016. She would lastly submit that charge sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail since 01/11/2015 therefore, he may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case; further taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence; nature of dispute; defence of the applicant; charge sheet has already been filed and pretrial detention of the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that present is the fit
3
case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
8. It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
Tiwari
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail in view of the charge sheet filing and payment of the disputed amount.
Non-applicant filed an application
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Keshav Ram Sahu
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
