Allowed

Dinesh Kumar Rao v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Sept 2016MCRCA/869/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in an anticipatory bail application, held that despite the civil nature of the property dispute, the totality of circumstances warranted admitting the applicant to anticipatory bail in connection with offences under s. 420 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is admitted to anticipatory bail; he must execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety.

Dinesh Kumar Rao Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

MCRCA No. 869 of 2016

¶3

Dinesh Kumar Rao, S/o Late Chandrika Rao, Aged About 44 Years Occupation Contractor, R/o Om Residency, Ring Road No. 02, P.S. Civil Line, Tehsil - Bilaspur, Civil & Rev. Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Chhattisgarh through the S.H.O. Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, Civil And Rev. Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent

¶6

For the applicant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Govt. Adv.

¶7

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶8

Order on Board

¶9

23.09.2016

¶10

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 441/2016 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur (C.G) for the offences punishable u/ss 420 of IPC, the applicant has filed this application u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶11

As per the prosecution case, a complaint was made by one Sayyad Samir that he agreed to purchase a flat No. A-201 admeasuring 950 sqft bearing Khasra No.508/5 and 506/5 for a consideration of Rs.20 lakhs and initially an amount of Rs.17 lakhs was paid. Subsequently the sale deed could not executed, as such, as per the agreement 3 cheques were given and one cheque of Rs.5 lakh was encashed whereas the other two cheques could not be encashed as the amount was not deposited in the Bank Account and further the applicant again entered into agreement to sell the flat thereby the fraud has been committed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the nature of

¶13

dispute is of a civil nature and it is a transaction of an immovable property and instead of filing any suit for specific performance or for recovery of the amount, the complainant has preferred to lodge the report.

¶14

Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer.

¶15

Perused the case diary, the documents and statements as also the enquiry report of the police wherein it shows that the Police intervened as a mediator for transaction. Considering the nature of dispute and taking into totality of the such facts and circumstances, I am inclined to admit the applicant to anticipatory bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting him or the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :-

¶17

(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required;

¶18

(ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer;

¶19

(iii) that he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶20

(iv) that he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶21

C.c. as per rules.

¶22

Sd/GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE

¶23

R a o

Dinesh Kumar Rao v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Rao 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

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/s Arora Infrastructure Development Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Manoj Singh Thakur Vs Smt. Mamta Singh

Ramsanehi Sahu Vs Ashok Kumar and Others

Smt. Rajkumari Gupta and Ors. Vs State of M.P. and Ors.