Dismissed

Panchuram Dhritlahre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Oct 2019MCRC/5735/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the applicant's plea seeking release. The bench noted the absence of examined prosecution witnesses but emphasized the seriousness of the offences and the existence of a prima facie case. Consequently, bail was denied, directing the trial court to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

The second bail application was rejected; the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case as soon as possible.

Panchuram Dhritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 5735 of 2019

¶5

Panchuram Dhritlahre S/o - Sonuram Dhritlahre Aged About 36 Years R/o - Village Cherkapur Police Station Palari District BalodabazarBhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Non Applicant

¶10

For the Applicant	: Mr. Sumit Jhawar, Advocate
For Non Applicant	: Mr. D. C. Verma, G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

16.10.2019

¶14

This is second bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant before this Court. No other bail application is pending before any other Court.

¶15

Earlier, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court by order dated 03.04.2019 passed in MCRC No.1557 of 2019 considering prima facie case against him.

¶16

Perused the case diary provided by the learned counsel for the State in connection with Crime No.632/2018 registered at Police StationPalari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Case of the prosecution, in brief is that applicant was burdock Supervisor in Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Chherkapur. Applicant had sold without any authority 7,772 bags of

¶18

¶19

burdock and caused loss of Rs.4,58,548/- to that Samiti. Applicant and data entry operator coaccused Yaadram Fekar had issued bogus token and tried to cause loss of Rs.3,34,180/- to the said Samiti.

¶20

Counsel for the applicant submitted that no prosecution witness has examined yet. Applicant is in jail since 19.12.2018 thus applicant may be released on bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, however, submits that there is no criminal antecedent against the applicant in police case diary.

¶22

Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the seriousness of the offence, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail in second round of litigation. Consequently, the second bail application is rejected. However, trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case as soon as possible.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge

¶25

Parul

Panchuram Dhritlahre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchuram Dhritlahre 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. Arti (Pooja) Jaiswal Vs Santosh Gupta

Smt. Prity Sao Vs Rupesh Kumar Sao

Dhanesh Bhardwaj @ Dinesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakeshwar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gayatri Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh