Allowed

Shushil Kumar Sonkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Nov 2019MCRCA/1242/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur granted anticipatory bail to the applicant apprehending arrest in a cheating case involving financial fraud and forgery. The court observed that other co-accused had been granted bail and the charge sheet was filed, constituting a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; directed to release on PC bond Rs. 25,000/- with one surety upon arrest subject to conditions.

Shushil Kumar Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1242 of 2019

¶2

Shushil Kumar Sonkar S/o Shri Manharan Lal Sonkar Aged About 38 Years R/o Bajrang Chouk, Ward No. 02, Kumhari, Police Station Kumhari, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattigarh.

¶3

---- Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶6

	---- Respondent
For Applicant	: Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	: Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. A.G.

¶7

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board

¶8

11/11/2019

¶9

The applicant has filed this bail application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with crime no. 134/2016, registered at Police Station Rajhara, Distt. Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 120-B 34 of the IPC, Section 3, 4, 5 of C.G. Nishchhepko Adhiniyam 2015 and Section 58 F of RBI Act 1934.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant who is one of the agents of the company namely JSB Real India Infra Company Limited in connivance with other directors and agents have collected huge amounts from various depositors by alluring them to return their money with high rate of interest. It is alleged that no refund was made to the depositors. A report has been lodged by one of the

¶11

depositors namely Indrajeet Sahu. On the basis of said report, offence has been registered.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant neither the director nor he was agent of the said company. He only worked for two days as a daily wage employee in the said company. Prima Facie no offence can be made out against him. He further submits that the other co-accused persons have already granted benefit of bail and the charge-sheet of the case has already been filed. He finally submits that the applicant is a reputed person of his society, he is permanent resident of above mentioned address and there is no chance of his absconding, therefore, he may be granted benefit anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State opposes the bail application.

¶14

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution, arguments advanced by both the counsel appearing for the parties and further considering the fact that the other co-accused persons have already granted benefit of bail and the charge-sheet of the case has already been filed. Without further commenting on other merits of the case, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case for grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶16

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶17

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting him and he shall abide by all the following terms and conditions:-

¶18

I. That the accused/applicant shall made himself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer

¶19

as and when required;

¶20

II. The accused/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;

¶21

III. The accused/applicant shall not act, in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶22

IV. The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Arvind Singh Chandel)

¶25

Judge

¶26

Shubham

Shushil Kumar Sonkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shushil Kumar Sonkar 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

Prakash Kedia Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Duryodhan Chandrawanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madhusudan Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lala @ Tilakchand Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kairu @ Bhukhau Vs State

Yogesh Kumar Rajwade Vs State of Chhattisgarh