Dismissed

Mohd. Rasheed Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2022MCRC/4069/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a second bail application under Section 439 CrPC. The court refused bail despite witness retraction, noting no substantial change in circumstances, but allowed revival after six months if the trial is delayed.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; liberty to revive prayer for bail on ground of delay if trial not concluded within 6 months.

Mohd. Rasheed Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No.4069 of 2022

¶3

Mohd. Rasheed Ali S/o Aabid Ali Aged About 35 Years R/o Narsinghgarh, Post Mudhar, Aadhar Ganj, P.S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh. Permanent R/o B86, Badri Awas, Mehdauri, Teliyarganj, Prayagraj, P.S. Shivpuri, Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. -----Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of Chhattisgarh Through, S.H.O. P.S. Vishrampur, District, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ----Non-Applicant

¶6

For Applicant: Shri Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State: Smt M. Asha, PL.

¶7

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board

¶8

15.07.2022

¶9

This is 2^nd bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the Applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.145/2021 registered at P.S Vishrampur, District Surajpur (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC and under Section 66 D of IT Act. The earlier application has been dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2022 passed in M.Cr.C No.8938/2021.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question for which, he is in jail since 17.08.2021. He further submits that the search and seizure witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶11

Considering the seriousness of the allegations made against the present Applicant and further considering that merely because some witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and retracted from their earlier statements and also considering that there is no substantial change in the circumstances, I am not inclined to allow this application.

¶12

Accordingly, the application is rejected . However, it is directed that if the trial is not concluded within 6 months, then the Applicant shall be at liberty to revive his prayer for bail on the ground of delay.

¶13

Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶14

Priya

Mohd. Rasheed Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rasheed Ali 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. Kanchan Kunwar Vs Smt. Varsha Upadhyay

Pette Vs Dadu Lal

Vijay Dhruwe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemant Jatvar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Rajeev Nayan Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Rasheed Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh