Allowed

Bodhram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2023MCRC/5192/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted second regular bail to the applicant, who was in custody since December 2022, in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case involving cheque bouncing. The court relied on the absence of criminal antecedents and the trial's impending conclusion.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. allowed; applicant released on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like amount.

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

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C. No. 5192 of 2023

¶5

Bodhram Sahu, S/o Ramnath Sahu, aged about 58 years, R/o: Rajnagar, Ward No. 1, Distt: Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh, Permanent R/o: House No. 121, Ward No. 10, Tiranga Chowk, Village : Mallin, Tahsil & P.S. : Palari, District : Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Out Post Jute Mill Raigarh of the Police Station : Kotwali Raigarh, Tahsil & Civil & Revenue District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

----Non-applicant

¶10

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Mr. Rajkamal Singh & Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Adv. For Non-applicant : Ms. Richa Shukla, Deputy Govt. Advocate and Mr. Kunal Das, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

01-08-2023

¶14

The accused/applicant has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 1658/2022 registered at Police outpost Jute Mill of Police Station: Kotwali Raigarh for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 506 (B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

Applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh at appropriate stage by this Court vide order dated 28.4.2023 in M.Cr.C. No. 1877 of 2023.

¶16

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that present applicant and his son (another co-accused) namely Jitendra Kumar Sahu fraudulently received an amount of Rs.32,70,000/- from the complainant by cheque

¶17

¶18

and cash to get his admission in MBBS course in any private medical college without passing of NEET examination and when complainant - Gagan Bihari Patel could not get admitted in any private medical college and demand was made by him to return the aforesaid amount, three cheques of Rs.15,00,000/-, Rs.15,00,000/- & Rs.2,70,000/-, respectively was issued by accused persons in his favour, which were bounced and thereby they cheated to the complainant. Based on above facts, on being written complaint made by complainant – Gagan Bihari Patel, instant crime was registered in Police Chowki, Jutmill of Police Station Raigarh under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. After usual investigation, charge-sheet for aforesaid offences, along with Section 506(B) of the IPC was filed against the applicant and his son- Jitendra Kumar Sahu.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. It is further submitted that no amount has been received by the applicant and he has been implicated in the instant crime only because he is father of co-accused Jitendra Kumar Sahu. It is further submitted that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed by the Police but no material evidence has been collected by the Police to substantiate the fact that the applicant has received any such amount except oral statement of the witnesses. It is also contended that applicant is in detention since 11.12.2022; charge-sheet has already been filed and this is first crime registered against the applicant. It is lastly submitted that the alleged offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application. However, on being enquired, she submits that as per case diary, no criminal antecedent has been reported against the applicant.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶22

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that after usual investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed; applicant is in custody since 11.12.2022; no criminal antecedents has been reported against the applicant and the alleged offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class; I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court with following further conditions:-

¶25

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶26

(ii) that the applicant 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶27

(iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶28

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶29

Amit/

¶30

¶31

Bodhram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bodhram 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

Karam Singh Rathiya and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Anupa Tirkey and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kundan Lal Patel Vs Paramjeet Singh Oberoy

Dr. Pramoda Kumar Jena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Meena Dandekar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kuleshwar Thakur Vs Lilambar