Dismissed

Babulal and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Dec 2016MCRCA/1330/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. regarding alleged defalcation by applicants in a cooperative society. Finding the matter was still under investigation and the charge-sheet was not filed, the court dismissed the applicants plea for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

Babulal and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRCA No. 1330 of 2016

¶4

Babulal S/o Late Rameshwar Lodhi Aged About 50 Years Caste- Lodhi (Learned Court Below Has Not Mentioned As Late Rameshwar Lodhi) R/o Village Chaitukhapri, Police Chowki Mohara, Police Station & Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

Sukhau Ram S/o Late Firtu Ram Aged About 67 Years Caste- Gond, (Learned Court Below Has Not Mentioned As Late Firtu Ram) R/o Village Chaitukhapri, Police Chowki Mohara, Police Station & Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned As Police Station Mohara).

¶6

Dayal Das S/o Gyandas Aged About 47 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Village Seonikala, Police Chowki Mohara, Police Station & Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.(Wrongly Mentioned As Police Station Mohara).

¶7

Jhunia Bai Wd/o Late Bisnath Aged About 55 Years Caste- Kalar, R/o Village Mohara, Police Chowki Mohara, Police Station & Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned As Police Station Mohara).

¶8

Lain Kunwar W/o Meghuram Aged About 60 Years Caste- Lodhi, R/o Bijnapur, Police Chowki Mohara, Police Station & Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned As Nain Kumar As Well As Police Station Mohara).

¶9

---- Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondent

¶13

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Mr. V.C. Ottalwar, and Mr. F.S. Khare

¶14

Advocates

¶15

For Respondent/State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Advocate.

¶16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

19-12-2016

¶19

This application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 93 of 2015 registered at Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420/34 of IPC.

¶20

¶21

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that present applicants who were members of Sanchalak of Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Mohara, committed defercation of amount of Rs.1,04,55,411.48 whereby huge loss was caused to Samiti and thereby the aforesaid offence was committed.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence. Infact, entire offence has been committed by one Mahendra Verma, who was Co-operative Inspector and false allegations have been attributed to the applicants. therefore they may be extended the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C..

¶23

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail application and would submit that the charge-sheet has not been filed and still the matter is under investigsation to judge the degree of involvement of the applicants, therefore, the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., may not be extended to the applicants.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and documents.

¶25

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstnces of the case, nature of allegations leveled against the applicant and further considering the fact that the charge-sheet has not been filed and still the matter is under investigation, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., to the applicants.

¶26

¶27

Accordingly, the application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., is

¶28

liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶29

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶30

Raju

Babulal and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babulal and Ors. 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

Ishwar Lal Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shailendra Kumar Dixit Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Santram Gond Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Netram and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manjit Sidar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh