Allowed

Mohd. Rasheed v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Sept 2022MCRC/6208/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the applicant's second bail application under Section 439 CrPC. The court ordered release on bail citing delay in trial and insufficient prosecution support after examining witnesses, without commenting on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000 with one local surety.

Mohd. Rasheed Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.CR.C. No. 6208 of 2022

¶5

Mohd. Rasheed, S/o. Aabid Ali, aged about 38 years, Caste - Muslim, R/o. Narsinghgarh, Muaar, Aadhar Ganj, P.S. - Raniganj, District - Pratapgarh, U.P. Permanent R/o - B-86, Badri Awas, Mehdauri, Teliyarganj, Prayagraj, P.S. - Shivputi, Tehsil- Sadar, District Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through - S.H.O. P.S.- Jainagar DistrictSurajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

02/09/2022

¶14

Applicant has filed this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.185/2021, registered at Police Station – Jainagar, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 380, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 66 D of I.T. Act.

¶15

¶16

This is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 09.12.2021 in M.Cr.C. No. 6910 of 2021.

¶17

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.08.2021 in between 9.00 to 10.00 PM some persons by tempering ATM of SBI installed at Silfili bearing No. FFBQ0010020, committed theft of Rs.40,000/-. Written report of incident was lodged in concerned police station by an employee of TSI Company, based on which police investigated crime. Through CCTV footage found one unnumbered Swift Car at that relevant point of time. While tracing mobile number, police found location of mobile near Pendra Railway Station and applicant was arrested from un-numbered Swift Car. His memorandum statement was recorded in which he stated that he removed number plate of car and committed offence along with others. Memorandum statement of others were also recorded. Based on their statements, applicant and others were arrested in connection with aforementioned crime.

¶18

Shri Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel for applicant would submit that this repeat bail application has been filed on two grounds. Firstly that there is delay in trial and secondly the witnesses of seizure and memorandum namely Jahid Ali and Navshad Alam have been examined before learned trial Court and they have not supported the case of prosecution. He contended that applicant was arrested on 17.08.2021 and till date only three witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class. Hence, applicant may be

¶19

¶20

enlarged on bail.

¶21

Shri Praveen Shrivastava, learned counsel for State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant and submits that there are only six prosecution witnesses, out of which three have already been examined. Hence, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. However, he do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for applicant that seizure and memorandum witnesses namely Jahid Ali and Navshad Alam have been examined, before learned trial Court in view of the documents placed on record by counsel for applicant.

¶22

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of the case, submission made by learned counsel for applicant based on deposition sheet (Annexure A-2), period of detention since 17.08.2021, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

¶25

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:-

¶26

a). Applicant shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

¶27

¶28

(b). Applicant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶29

c). If the applicant is found involved in similar offence in the future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of Bail.

¶30

Certified copy as per rules.

¶31

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶32

Balram

Mohd. Rasheed v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rasheed 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

Dhansai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan @ Manmohan Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khemraj Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Basant Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh