Allowed

Harishankar Vaidya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Dec 2022MCRC/9023/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed bail for Harishankar Vaidya, who is accused of cheating and forgery. Although the State argued the case was serious, the Court noted the length of detention, the protracted trial, and prior bail grants by a coordinate bench.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000 with one local surety and release him on bail.

Harishankar Vaidya Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 9023 of 2022

¶4

Harishankar Vaidya S/o Late Anil Kumar Vaidya Aged About 39 Years R/o Joot Mil, Infront Of Police Chowki, Raigarh Chowki, Raigarh Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Shrinagar, Near Sharda Samudayik Bhawan, Shivanand Nagar, Khamtarai, Police Station Khamtarai District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For the Applicant/s :- Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For the State :- Ms. Usha Chandraker, PL

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

09.12.2022

¶13

The applicant has preferred this Third bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with crime No. 438 of 2019 registered in Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, CG for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh application as and when occasion arises vide order dated 25.03.2021 passed in MCRC No. 7131 of 2020 and the Second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to repeat their prayer, if the trial is not concluded within a period of 12 months from today vide order dated 22.09.2021 passed in MCRC No. 5712 of 2021.

¶14

Case of the prosecution story in brief is that the applicant and his wife took in total 3.25 lacs rupees from different person for providing

¶15

them job and have given them fake appointment letter. It is alleged that from one Amit Yadav in the month of January 2017 applicant has taken Rs. 1,00,000/- and in December 2018 Rs. 2,00,000/- from Surendra Yadav residence and have given appointment letter and said that when he would be giving Rs. 25,000/- in March 2019 he would be giving posting order, but when no posting was being given, the report has been lodged and after investigation the challan has been submitted against the applicant and his wife.

¶16

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case, applicant is in jail since 25.01.2020, charge-sheet has been filed. She further submits that the prosecution has projected 28 witnesses out of which till date only single witness has been examined, trial is likely to take some time. She further submits that custodial interrogation is not required because he is in jail almost 2 years and 10 months. She further submits that the appellant has already been granted by the coordinate bench vide order dated 26.11.2020 passed in MCRC No. 5940 of 2020, therefore he may be enlarged on bail. She placed reliance on a recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577 and Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2012 SC 830.

¶17

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the present applicant is serious in nature. He further submits that huge amount has been taken by the applicant from different person in the name of providing them Government Job and all endevours would be made by

¶18

the prosecution to conclude the trial, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶19

5 . Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, looking to the nature of allegations, period of detention of the applicant and trial is likely to take time, applicant has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶20

6 . It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on

¶21

following conditions :-

¶22

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

¶23

b) He shall not make any attempt to tamper or influence with the prosecution witnesses.

¶24

It is also made clear that the complainant or State is at liberty to move an application regarding cancellation of bail of the applicant in the event of applicant involving himself in similar offence in future.

¶25

Certified copy as per rules.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶28

PAWAN

Harishankar Vaidya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishankar Vaidya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhilesh Tambe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saroj Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suryakant Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Minz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Damleshwar Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh