Allowed

Vijay Kumar Markandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 May 2023MCRC/467/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court considered a bail application under Section 439 CrPC for an applicant detained in a corruption case. The court allowed bail, noting the applicant had spent over four months in custody and the prosecution had not yet recorded statements of key witnesses regarding money received in exchange for avoiding power disconnections.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like sum.

Vijay Kumar Markandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 467 OF 2023

¶5

• Vijay Kumar Markandey, S/o Bhaklaram Markandey, aged about 45 years, Caste Satnami, R/o Village Ranigaon, Police Station Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) … Applicant

¶6

versus

¶7

• State of Chhattisgarh, through: Station House Officer, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) … Respondent

¶8

For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board [09/05/2023]

¶9

1. The present is an Application under Section 439 of CrPC seeking for grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 24.12.2022 in connection with Crime No.884/2022 registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC.

¶10

2. Case of the Prosecution is that the Applicant being a Lineman of the Electricity Company is said to have received money from the consumers whose power supply was ordered to be disconnected by the Company, but he had not disconnected the power supply of those consumers, causing huge loss to the Company. It is also the case of the Prosecution that the Applicant used to collect money from the consumers in lieu of certain works, like - shifting of old electricity poles or erection of new electricity poles etc.

¶11

3. Learned Counsel for Applicant submits that as regards the allegation of the Applicant having received money for not disconnecting the power supply of two of the consumers, whereby the Company has been put to loss of Rs.1,34,941/- and Rs.15,45,041/-, the case of the Applicant is that the statement of these two consumers has not been recorded till date by the Prosecution so as to establish the charge against the Applicant for not disconnecting the power supply on account of having received certain illegal gratification by the Applicant.

¶12

-2-

¶13

4. Learned Counsel for Applicant further submits that as regards the allegation of the Applicant having received money from the consumers for works, like - erection of new poles and shifting of old poles etc., except for the statement of the consumers, there does not seem to be any material available in the Case Diary and that considering the fact that the Applicant in jail for more than four months, he may be released on bail.

¶14

5. On the other hand, opposing the Bail Application, learned State Counsel submits that the allegation against the Applicant is quite serious. The Applicant has caused huge financial loss to the Electricity Company by virtue of his misdeed. The Applicant is in a habit of collecting huge amount of money in lieu of certain acts which he otherwise required to be discharged in his official capacity. Therefore, the Applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, particularly considering the period of custody undergone by the Applicant, the nature of allegation levelled against the Applicant and also considering the fact that the statement of two of the consumers, whose electricity supply was ordered to be disconnected by the Company, has not yet been recorded before the Trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that a strong case for grant of bail to the Applicant at this juncture has been made out.

¶16

7. Accordingly, the Application under Section 439 of CrPC is allowed. It is ordered that the Applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance as and when directed by the Trial Court.

¶17

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy)

¶18

/sharad/ Judge

Vijay Kumar Markandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Markandey 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

Vaasu Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abir Kundu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kalpana Natural Forest Product Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saturn Ferro-Alloys Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Majaruddin Alias Majhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh