Allowed

Nilendra Mohture v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2018MCRC/111/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under IPC and the Arms Act, noting that the complainant had not identified the petitioner during the trial, leaning towards his release on a personal bond with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted: Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Nilendra Mohture Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No.111 of 2018

¶4

Nilendra Mohture S/o Rampal Mohture, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Keshlewada, P. S. Hatta, District Balaghat M. P. At Present Village Sarora, P. S. Urla, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶8

	---- Respondent
For Petitioner	: Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Shri Manish Nigam, Panel Lawyer

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Order On Board

02/02/2018

Heard.

The applicant has moved this application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.342/2017 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg for the offence punishable under Section 397/34 of IPC and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

¶14

This is second application for grant of bail. First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶15

Case of the prosecution is that the applicant and other co-accused obstructed the complainant and thereafter, looted Rs.50,000/-.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated only on the ground of suspicion. The complainant-T. Ravi Raju has already been examined before the Court as PW-1 and he has not identified the present applicant during trial, therefore, entire case of the prosecution against the present applicant falls to the ground.

¶17

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of bail

¶18

on the submission that looking to the nature and gravity of allegation and that the recovery alleged to have been made on the basis of memorandum given by the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled to bail.

¶19

Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration that the complainant, who is alleged to have looted, has already been examined before the Court and he does not identify the present applicant, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

¶20

Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is ordered that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the condition that he shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted.

¶21

SD/-

¶22

( Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)

¶23

J U D G E

¶24

Tumane

Nilendra Mohture v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilendra Mohture 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

Smt. Yamini Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Narotam Kumar Yadu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Laxmi Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amirunnisha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ranveer Singh Narvaria Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Raj Kishore Alias Kumar Alias Rishikesh Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh