Dismissed

Rajeev Nayan Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2022MCRC/4184/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the second regular bail application of the accused. Despite delaying evidentiary proceedings, the court found no ground to alter the earlier dismissal order and rejected the plea.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; applicant at liberty to revive prayer before trial court after 6 months of delay in trial conclusion.

Rajeev Nayan Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No.4184 of 2022

¶3

Rajeev Nayan Shrivastava S/o Rampujan Lal Shrivastava Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Harrapara Bhaiyathan, P.S. - Bhaiyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh -----Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station (Jhilimili), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ----Non-Applicant

¶6

For Applicant: Shri Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State: Shri Devesh Chandra Verma, G.A.

¶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.25/2021 registered at P.S Jhilmili, District Surajpur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 420, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471/34 IPC. The earlier application has been dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2022 passed in M.Cr.C No.9813/2021.

¶10

Case of the prosecution is that the present Applicant and the co-accused are employees of E-com Express Pvt. Ltd. and have misappropriated funds therein by providing a forged bank deposit slip, therefore, the aforesaid offence has been registered against him.

¶11

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 06.11.2021. He further submits that only five witnesses have been examined out of total 24 witnesses, charge was framed on 15.03.2022, the case was fixed for evidence on 24.04.2022 but due to non-availability of the Presiding Officer, the evidence could

¶12

not be recorded. He further submits that the present JMFC has already been transferred and the main complainant namely Anurag Rai has not yet appeared though notice has been sent to him. He further submits that co-accused has admitted in his memorandum that broken seal of the Bank is kept by him and he has utilized an amount of Rs.6 lacs for the sake of construction, therefore, the present Applicant may be released on bail.

¶13

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission of learned Counsel for the parties, also considering the earlier order, I am not inclined to allow this application, at this stage.

¶15

Accordingly, the application is rejected . However, the trial Court shall conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from today and the Applicant is at liberty to revive his prayer for bail before the concerned trial Court on the ground of delay.

¶16

Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶17

Priya

Rajeev Nayan Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Nayan Shrivastava 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

Mohd. Rasheed Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemant Jatvar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Rasheed Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh