Allowed

Vinod Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Apr 2023MCRC/1729/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Common Order from the High Court of Chhattisgarh hearing three bail applications under Section 439 CrPC filed by employees and a borrower of State Bank of India. The court allowed bail for all three, directing them to execute personal bonds with one surety, citing the filed charge-sheet, long detention since November 2022, and the non-cognizable nature of the trial court as factors favoring rele

What did the court decide?

Release of all three applicants on bail by executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like sum.

Vinod Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C. No. 10541 of 2022

¶5

Kumar Devendra, S/o Late Mahadev Prasad, aged 52 years, Occupation Service (Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Harda), R/o Village – Salaiiya (wrongly mentioned as Salaema) (House No. 9, Oracle) beside Sagar Life Style Tower, Police Station – Misrod, Tehsil Hujud District – Bhopal (M.P.)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station – Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶9

----Non-applicant

¶10

M.Cr.C. No. 460 of 2023

¶11

Vijay Kumar Singh, S/o Late Niranjan Ram Gond, Aged about 42 Years, Occupation – Agriculture, R/o Village Palgadi, P.S. Darima, Tehsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Applicant

¶13

Versus

¶14

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶15

----Non-applicant

¶16

M.Cr.C. No. 1729 of 2023

¶17

Vinod Sahu, age 29 years, S/o Shri Satpal Sahu, Occupation – Driver and Agriculturist, R/o Vill : Biniya, Post : Argoti, Chouki Kunni, P.S. - Lakhanpur, Dist : Sarguja (C.G.)

¶18

---- Applicant

¶19

Versus

¶20

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer (S.H.O.), Police Station – Lakhanpur, Dist: Sarguja (C.G.)

¶21

----Non-applicant

¶22

¶23

For Applicant	: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate in M.Cr.C. No. 10541 of 2022
For Applicant	: Mr. V.B. Soni, Advocate in M.Cr.C. No. 460 of 2023
For Applicant	: Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate in M.Cr.C. No. 1729 of 2023
For Non-applicant	: Mr. Adil Minhaj, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble	Mr. Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

¶24

Order On Board

¶25

10-04-2023

¶26

Since all the bail applications arise out of a same Crime No. 85 of 2017 and same police station, therefore, they are being heard analogously and decided by this Common Order.

¶27

The accused/applicants have preferred this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 85 of 2017 registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in between 13.03.2013 to 30.9.2015, Bank officials of State Bank of India, Branch Lakhanpur, District Ambikapur, Sarguja in connivance with the other co-accused persons on the basis of false and fabricated documents, withdrawn KCC (Kisan Credit Card) / agriculture loan amount of Rs.1,22,13,031/in the names of 40 farmers and thereby they cheated the Bank. Based on above facts, present crime was registered under Sections 420, 467 & 468 of the IPC. After usual investigation, police of police Station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja filed charge-sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the five accused persons including aforesaid three applicants.

¶29

¶30

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for applicant – Kumar Devendra would submit that he is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. It is further submitted that it is a case of the prosecution itself that date of incident has been shown in the FIR as 13.03.2013 to 13.03.2013 and on that date, the present applicant joined the Lakhanpur Branch, as Branch Manager and before that all the proceedings of sanctioning of KCC loan were completed and after his joining on 13.03.2013, he only sanctioned the aforesaid loan amount. It is further submitted that prior to that search report, field report and other verification of the documents had already been completed. It is lastly submitted that applicant - Kumar Devendra is languishing in jail since 14.11.2022; charge-sheet has already been filed and the alleged offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class, hence, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for applicant – Vijay Kumar Singh would submit that in the alleged period of incident, the applicant was posted as Peon in the said Bank and he has neither any role for sanctioning the aforesaid loan nor he did any formalities in respect of such transaction, he has been implicated in the alleged offence only because he is employee of the said Bank. It is submitted the present applicant is in detention since 14.11.2022; charge-sheet has already been filed and, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for applicant – Vinod Sahu would submit that this applicant himself is a borrower of loan amount from the same Bank, which he has already paid to the Bank. He would further submit that the applicant is not involved in the alleged crime in any manner; he is in custody since 24.11.2022; charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, hence, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶33

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the State / non-applicant would submit that it is a case of embezzlement of huge amount, that too, in connivance with the Bank officials and some brokers, which they have withdrawn on the basis of false and fabricated documents, but the said loan amount was not given to any of the farmers and even the loan amount has been withdrawn in the name of some dead persons also. Hence, considering overall facts situation of the case, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as material available on record.

¶36

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts of the case, particularly, considering the fact that chargesheet has already been filed; all the three applicants are in detention since November, 2022; the alleged offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class and conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, all the three bail applications are allowed.

¶37

Accused/applicants are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They are directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court.

¶38

Certified copy, as per rules.

Sd/-

Amit/

Vinod Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Dhananjaya Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shekhlal Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rammurar Padwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chetan Lal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh