Allowed

Mahendra Giri Goswami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jul 2022MCRCA/42/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court of Chhattisgarh granted bail to the applicant apprehending arrest in a cheating case. The court did not evaluate merits but deemed it fit to grant bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of similar sum upon furnishing personal bond to the arresting officer.

Mahendra Giri Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRCA No. 42 of 2022

¶4

Mahendra Giri Goswami S/o Shyam Giri Goswami Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Porda, P.S. And Tehsil- Gharghoda, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge, Police StationGharghoda, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent

¶8

For the Applicant/s :- Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Amit Verma, PL

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,

¶10

Order on Board

¶11

14.07.2022

¶12

This frst anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been fled by the accused/applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 403/2022 registered at Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh, CG for the ofence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶13

Case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant and other against the present applicant alleging that present applicant took Rs. 4,05,000/- from Ambika Yadav, 1,00,000/from Vijay Yadav through bank account and Rs. 2,87,000/- in cash and Rs. 10,00,000/- from Ashish Kujur total Rs. 18,42,000/- on the pretext of getting a Government job.

¶14

Thereafter a complaint was made and ofences was registered against the applicant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that he does not even know Ashish Kujur. He further submits that Ambika Yadav and Vijay Yadav are husband and wife therefore, it cannot be normally prosecuted that applicants have taken money from them for getting the Government Job. He submits that some monitory transaction was there between applicant and Vijay Yadav and some amount has been paid by applicant to Vijay Yadav copy of which fled with covering memo. Therefore, application may be allowed.

¶16

Learned State counsel opposes the application for anticipatory bail and submits looking to the allegation and huge amount is taken by applicant, the application may be dismissed.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly, the nature of allegations made against the accused/applicant, without commenting anything on the merits, this Court fnds it to be a ft case for grant of anticipatory bail to him. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting ofcer, on the following conditions:-

¶18

(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so required.

¶19

(b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer,

¶20

¶21

(d) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶22

(v) he shall appear before the concerned Police Officer/Investigating Officer on 01.08.2022.

¶23

It is made clear that if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated

¶24

by the appellant, the State would be free to move for cancellation of bail.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶27

Pawan

Mahendra Giri Goswami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Giri Goswami 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

Pawan Pal (Wrongly Written in Bail Rejection Order as Pawanlal) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jayanti Lal Rohini @ Meghwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vimal Ram Chouhan @ Monti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishnu Bhadra Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligent (Dri)

Mukesh Duggal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amir Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh