Allowed

Heeralal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Sept 2022MCRC/7399/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the bail application of Heeralal Sahu charged with cheating and criminal conspiracy. Considering the delay in trial due to non-appearance of prosecution witnesses and the grant of bail to the co-accused, the court released the applicant on regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000 with one surety, conditioned to appear regularly in court and not tamper with witnesses.

Heeralal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Money Laundering | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.CR.C. No. 7399 of 2022

¶5

Heeralal Sahu, S/o. Jagdish Sahu, aged about 41 years, R/o. Village Dhaurabhata, Hirri, Police Station Hirri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through : Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶12

09/09/2022

¶13

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.731/2019, registered at Police Station – Sarkanda, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

¶14

This is fourth bail application of applicant. His earlier bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.01.2022 and 15.07.2022.

¶15

¶16

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant upon receiving recovery notice from Bank came to know that some loan amount has been withdrawn from his bank account. When he went to Axix Bank, Bilaspur for verifying the facts, he came to know that amount of Rs.7,90,000/- has been withdrawn as loan on his name. He made complaint to the Bank authority as well as police authority that without giving knowledge of sanction of loan in his name, amount of loan was also withdrawn by the applicant and other co-accused from his bank account. The applicant and coaccused have taken his signatures on the cheque stating him that it is required for purpose of security. He was assured that as soon as the amount of loan will be sanctioned based on his application, he will be intimated but that was not done and entire loan amount was withdrawn. When no action was taken by the police authority or the Bank authority, complainant filed application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., before the jurisdictional Magistrate for registration of FIR, based upon which, the instant FIR was registered against applicant and he was arrested on 12.09.2021.

¶17

Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for applicant would submit that earlier bail applications filed by applicant were not decided on merits. He contended that there are two accused persons in this case namely Prabodh Kumar Das (Branch Manager) and applicant. Against both the accused persons, total six crime numbers were registered alleging similar nature of offence. Applicant has been extended benefit of bail in four crime number

¶18

¶19

one of which is M.Cr.C. No. 1543 of 2019. Co-accused Prabodh Kumar Das have granted bail in all six cases registered against him. He also contended that applicant has filed this application on the ground of delay in trial. He has placed on record copy of order sheet (Annexure P-6) to show that case was fixed for recording of prosecution witness on 20.02.2022 but prosecution witnesses were not turning up. He also contended that applicant is in jail since 12.09.2021. Hence, prayed that applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Shri Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel for State opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant would submit that serious allegations are levelled against applicant. However, he submits that as applicant has not placed on record copy of order granting bail to applicant in other crime number and therefore, his submission may not be considered.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for applicant, period of detention and also considering the order sheet placed on record showing that prosecution witnesses are not appearing before learned trial Court, submission of counsel for applicant that coaccused (Branch Manager) is on bail, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

¶23

¶24

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 surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

Certified copy as per rules.

¶29

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶30

Balram

Heeralal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heeralal Sahu 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 and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashutosh Miri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sheel Ratna Shrivastava Vs Bhilai Steel Plant and Ors.

Shakil Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Alpana Mishra Vs the State of Chhattisgarh