Dismissed

Premlal Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jul 2020MCRC/3710/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicant, arrested for cheating and deposit-taking offences, sought bail citing trial delay. The Court held that with only two witnesses left, the trial was at the fag end. Consequently, the application was dismissed without entertaining fresh arguments, with a direction to the trial court to e

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; trial court directed to expedite trial.

Premlal Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 3710 of 2020

¶4

Premlal Dewangan S/o Shankar Lal Dewangan Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 82, Riddhi Siddhi Colony, Dongargaon Road, Rajnandgaon, Police Station Basantpur, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For applicant - Shri Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate. For Respondent/State – Shri Ayaj Naved, G.A.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order

¶11

10/07/2020

¶12

This is third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The first bail application was dismissed on 2/09/2016 and the second bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 6/02/2020.

¶13

The applicant has preferred this application for grant of bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 396/2015 registered in Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. for offence punishable under sections 420/34 of IPC and Section 6(1)(2)(3)(4) and (5) of Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 Act.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, the applicant who was Director of YALSCO Real Estate and Agro Farming Limited started the company and received the amount from different depositors with an assurance to repay the same with high interest. Subsequently when the amount was not returned to them, certain complaints were made by few of the depositors.

¶15

The matter was investigated in which it was found that the applicant's company was not authorized by Securities and Exchange Board of India

¶16

¶17

(SEBI) & Reserve Bank of India to collect the amount from people and return the same with high interest and therefore the aforesaid offence was committed.

¶18

On the last date of hearing, learned State counsel was directed to enquire as to how many witnesses are left to be examined as the bail was sought for on the ground that trial is being delayed.

¶19

Learned State counsel on instruction submits that only two witness remains to be examined.

¶20

Considering the fact that only two witness remains to be examined and trial is at the fag end, I am not inclined to entertain this third bail application.

¶21

Accordingly, the third bail application is dismissed. However, the trial court is requested to expedite the trial.

Sd/-

(Goutam Bhaduri)

JUDGE

gouri

Premlal Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premlal Dewangan 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

S.K. Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Umesh Kumar Girre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhiraj Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish Kumar Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Payal Chawra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Premchand Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh