Dismissed

Abhishek Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Jun 2022CRMP/866/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the bail petition challenging charges for cheating and forgery. The bench held that the charge-sheet was not devoid of evidence based on recorded statements and voice recordings, ordering dismissal at the threshold.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as charge-sheet is not without evidence and prosecution need prove documents during trial.

Abhishek Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

CRMP No.866 of 2022

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 866 of 2022

¶5

Abhishek Soni S/o Dr. Ramprasad Soni Aged About 40 Years R/o Vishal Nagar, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Station House Officer Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner : Shri N.K. Chaterjee, Advocate For State : Shri Arijit Tiwari, PL

¶12

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GOUTAM BHADURI

ORDER

16/06/2022

Heard.

The present petition is by one of the accused, who is facing charge under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B IPC.

¶17

As per the case of the prosecution, a land belong to one Kashi Prasad Choudhary bearing Khasra Nos.427/36, 428/5, 430/11 situated at Labhandi, Raipur. Kashi Prasad Choudhary died on 19.04.2021 thereafter a forged power of attorney was prepared dated 14.09.2021 and by virtue of such forged power of attorney a sale deed was executed by Shivdas Manikpuri and Shiv Das Gupta, who are power of attorney holders and Umesh Kumar and Rajkumar Meghani were the witnesses. The sale deed was made of Rs.49,50,000/-.

¶18

CRMP No.866 of 2022

¶19

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in this case there is no evidence against the applicant and only on the basis of the memorandum he has been inculpated, which is not admissible.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents.

¶22

Perusal of the copy of the statement of Manohar Waryani would show that by preparing a forged power of attorney the sale deed was executed and the statement of Manohar Waryani would show that Abhishek Soni, the present petitioner, received an amount of Rs.18 to 20 Lakhs from Shivdas and the conversation was made on mobile and the said voice was recorded which was uploaded in the pen drive which was seized by the police. Having considered the same, at the threshold the charge-sheet, which has been filed against the petitioner cannot be said to be without any iota of evidence. It is during the trial the prosecution would be required to prove the documents. Prima facie, reading the statement of Manohar Waryani and the nature of allegation, the way by hatching the conspiracy, the sale deed was executed in name of a dead person by taking forged power of attorney, I do not find any substance to entertain this petition.

¶23

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶24

Sd/Goutam Bhaduri Judge

¶25

Ashu

Abhishek Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Soni 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

Vijay Kumar Sahu Vs Suresh Dhruv

Dharmendra Sing Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vittal Das Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Latif Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Ravendra Kumar Namdeo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K. Ravi Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh