Allowed

Nand Mohan Pandey @ Niraj Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Nov 2022MCRC/7510/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a first bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by four accused persons in a cheating case. The applicants were in jail since July 15, 2022, facing offences under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), and 34. The court released them on personal bond with local surety, imposing conditions to not leave the state or tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one local surety for the like amount.

Nand Mohan Pandey @ Niraj Kumar Singh Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 7510 of 2022

¶4

1. Nand Mohan Pandey @ Niraj Kumar Singh S/o Sitaram Pandey Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chaderia, Police Station- Gagha, District- Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh.

¶5

1. Rahul Pandey @ Golu S/o Ajay Pandey Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bedauli, Post Chacharia, Police Station Gagha, District- Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh.

¶6

1. Chandra Bhusan Chand S/o Kanak Chand Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Narre, Police Station Dagha, District- Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh.

¶7

1. Dayashankar Dwivedi S/o Late Manager Dwivedi Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Deoria, Road, No. 14 Police Station Deoria, District- Deoria, Uttar Pradesh.

¶8

---- Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Shankargarh, DistrictBalrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Non-Applicant

¶12

For the Applicants For Non-Applicant

¶13

: Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Meena Shastri, Addl. A.G.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board

¶15

18.11.2022

¶16

The applicants have preferred the first bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as they are in jail since 15.07.2022 in connection with Crime No.76/2022 registered at Police StationShankargarh, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 of IPC.

¶17

The case of prosecution in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report alleging that co-accused Amit yadav came to his home in the month of March, 2022 and said that the Branch Office of Kalinga Agro Business Company, Odisha is situated at Ramanujganj and for dealership of the said company took amount of Rs.25,000/- & Rs.15,000/- in two installments in cash. Thereafter his son Ravikant Yadav deposited Rs.21,000 and Rs.25,000 by phone pay in Bank Account of Kaling Agro Business Company on various dates. Thereafter, on 17.06.2022 the office has been closed by them and all the employees who worked there for being have been fled from there and thereby accused committing cheating of total amount of Rs.86,000/-. Therefore, FIR has been lodged against the present applicants.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that they are only the employees of said Company, they are not Director of said company and nothing has been seized from them and further between the complainant and co-accused there was commercial transaction and now it has been settled with the complainant as the amount

¶19

¶20

has already been returned to him. He also submits that there is delay in lodging the FIR but for that no satisfactory explanation has been given and there is no previous criminal antecedents of the applicants, trial is not concluded as yet, charge-sheet has been filed, they are in jail since 15.07.2022, therefore, they may be released on bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that looking to the allegations against the applicants they are not entitled for bail. He further submits that in the event of bail, local surety may be asked for and they may be restrained from leaving the State of Chhattisgarh without prior permission of trial Court because they belong to Uttar Pradesh for which counsel for the applicants does not object.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the nature of allegations, there is no previous criminal antecedent of the present applicants, detention period, charge-sheet has been filed and trial may take some time, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicants is allowed and it is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one local surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said trial Court, till disposal of the trial.

¶25

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial Court will decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. It is also made clear that the State is at liberty to move an application regarding cancellation of bail of the applicants in the event of applicants involving themselves in similar offence in future. It is also made clear that applicants shall not leave the State of Chhattisgarh without prior permission of the trial Court. It is made clear that they shall not make any attempt to tamper or influence with the evidence.

¶26

It is made clear that the if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the applicants, the State would be free to move for cancellation of bail.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶29

parul

Nand Mohan Pandey @ Niraj Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Mohan Pandey @ Niraj Kumar Singh 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

Amrik Singh Kalda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumhar @ Chudamani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramshakha Vishvakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Komal @ Kallu Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Komal @ Kallu Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Reman Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh