Allowed

Bodhram Panda v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jul 2019MCRCA/560/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a second bail application for the applicant falsely implicated in an offence under Sections 408, 420, and 34 of the IPC, due to lack of investigation and delayed FIR, directing release on personal bond with a surety.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one local surety in the like sum.

Bodhram Panda Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C.(A.) No. 560 of 2019

¶5

Bodhram Panda S/o Late Makhan Lal Panda, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village- Jhariyapali, Police Station- Gharghoda, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Gharghoda, DistrictRaigarh Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent ____________________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Panel Lawyer.

¶10

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

¶11

18-07-2019

¶12

Heard.

¶13

This is second application for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 172/2018, registered at Police Station- Gharghoda, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 420, 34 of I.P.C. The earlier application filed by this applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.09.2018 in M.Cr.C. No. 922 of 2018.

¶14

The applicant is falsely implicated in this case and the police has not made any investigation in this case so far for taking a statement of the person to whom the hardware was supplied or by making any seizure of the articles and the stock register of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is based only on the statement made by the complainant himself which cannot be complete, the F.I.R. is delayed by 10 days. Therefore, it is prayed that this applicant may also be granted bail.

¶15

-2-

¶16

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.

¶17

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

¶18

The complainant has lodged F.I.R. alleging that this applicant and one co-accused were employed in his hardware shop. It is alleged that in making supply to two persons the number of Asbestos seats that were ordered by the said customers in their place, this applicant and the coaccused have supplied surplus asbestos seats causing loss to the complainant. Hence, this case.

¶19

After considering the material present in the case diary and the slow progress of the investigation, I feel inclined to allow this application.

¶20

Hence, the bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶21

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)

¶24

Judge

¶25

Monika

Bodhram Panda v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bodhram Panda 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

Vishal Vivek Mukharjee Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Sahu and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Gopal Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Afatab Siddiqui & Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arif Ahmed Qureshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh