Allowed

Girdhar Gopal Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jul 2018MCRCA/306/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an application for anticipatory bail against charges of cheating and forgery. The judge held it a fit case due to lack of documentary proof against the disabled applicant despite a witness statement linking him to the charged stamp.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; release on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety, subject to cooperation in investigation and other conditions.

Girdhar Gopal Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 306 of 2018

¶5

Girdhar Gopal Rathore S/o Shri Bahadur Rathore, Aged About 44 Years, Occupation Stamp Vendor, R/o Chitarpara, Janjgir P. S. Janjgir, District Janjgir Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Janjgir, District Janjgir, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

----Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant – Shri Abhijit Sarkar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State – Shri Anupam Dubey, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board

¶12

12-07-2018

¶13

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.138/2017, registered at Police Station – Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh for offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 of the IPC, the applicant has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶14

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. As alleged this applicant has not made sale of the stamp in question to any of other co-accused person. Apart from that, this applicant is 90% disabled. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant may be benefited with grant of anticipatory bail.

¶15

3 . Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the application submitting that the diary statement of the witness is against this applicant that stamp F 425963 was sold by this applicant in the year 2010, on which one agreement was recorded between the parties, whereas, the stamp was issued by the treasury on 22-02-2012, hence, a clear case is made out against this applicant. Therefore, the application may be rejected.

¶16

4 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶17

According to the prosecution case, a Mahadanama of year 2010 was

¶18

-2-

¶19

presented in a civil suit by other co-accused persons, the number shown on the stamp as aforesaid and the agreement was dated 21-09-2010, whereas, the treasury information shows issuance of the stamp on 22-02-2012. This applicant is stamp vendor and one of the witnesses has named him as the person who has sold this stamp.

¶20

It appears that this applicant has taken defence that he has not sold the said stamp and in the investigation made so far apart from the statement given by the witness, no such documentary proof has been collected like register etc. of the applicant to show that he was the seller of the said stamp. Hence, after due consideration, I am of this opinion that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to this applicant .

¶21

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. 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 executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :

¶22

(i) that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation;

¶23

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

¶24

(iii) that the applicant 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 to any police officer;

¶25

(iv) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶26

(v) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and

¶27

-3-

¶28

every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶29

8 . Certified copy as per rules.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

¶32

Aadil

Girdhar Gopal Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girdhar Gopal Rathore 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

Manharan Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madan Lal Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Ladiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Amrendra Pandey and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhupal Hati Vs State of Chhattisgarh