Allowed

Ajay Prakash Nagesh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 May 2023MCRC/659/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a corruption case involving paddy purchase fraud. The court held there was no prima facie evidence of personal benefit to the applicant and ordered release on a personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two local sureties of the like sum.

Ajay Prakash Nagesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 659 of 2023

¶5

Ajay Prakash Nagesh S/o Late Gangabalu Nagesh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Tulsi, Ward No. 11, P.S. Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- Respondent

¶8

For Applicant : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari along with Mr. Mehul Kumar, Advocates. For resp./State : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶10

02/05/2023

¶11

The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 45/2022 registered at Police Station, Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 408, 409, 120-B, 34 of I.P.C.1860

¶12

The present applicant is in jail since 23.09.2022 in connection with the aforesaid Crime Number.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that the allegation against the present applicant is that the present applicant in connivance with the other co-accused person, is said to have caused huge loss to the state exchequer in the course of paddy purchase. The applicant herein was the In-charge of the paddy purchase center at village Tulsi, Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa. The allegation is that the present applicant in the course of discharge of his duty as an Incharge of the paddy purchase center, has not properly verified the accounts of the various farmers who had come to society to sell their paddy and in the course, excess land was shown to be in the name of the farmers and as a consequence excess paddy was shown to have been purchased from them, thereby, causing huge loss of more than Rs. 2 crores to the state exchequer.

¶14

¶15

The Counsel for the applicant referring to the case diary submits that the plain reading of the case diary would itself revealed that there was absolutely no material to show that the present applicant has received any share in the amount which is said to have been paid to the farmers in excess of their total land which they had.

¶16

Counsel for the Applicant further submits that even if the entire prosecution case so far as the applicant is expected, it would only be a case where there was a negligence on the part of the applicant and dereliction of duty and that cannot by itself be said to be a criminal offence.

¶17

The State Counsel on the other hand opposing the bail application submits that it is a case where the present applicant’s name has been taken by a large numbers of farmers stating that the present applicant and the Data Entry Operator of the said paddy purchase center were together involved in the inflation of the total land area of the farmers so as to show additional excess purchase of paddy causing loss of more than Rs. 2 Crores to the state exchequer.

¶18

However, on a query being put to the State counsel, as to whether there is any material to show the present applicant having received any share from the alleged excess amount received by any of the farmers as a consequence of the Data Entry Operator inflating the land area of the farmers.

¶19

The State Counsel was not in a position to show any such material available as on records. Nonetheless, he referred to the statements of the farmers who had taken the name of the present applicant along with Data Entry Operator to have jointly played the role in the inflation of the total land area. The State Counsel further submits that the present applicant also was implicated on account of the fact that he did not discharged his duty as was otherwise required. According to the State Counsel, the present applicant was required for the authentication of the entries made by the Data Entry Operator and the present Applicant accepted the same without any enquiry, scrutiny or verification of facts from the records. Thus he is also equally responsible for loss cause to the state exchequer.

¶20

¶21

Having heard the contention put forth on either side and on perusal of records, taking into consideration the period of custody already undergone by the present applicant which by now is more than 7 months and also taking note of the fact that prima facie, there does not seem to be any benefit received by the present applicant from the total amount of more than Rs. 2 Crores of excess amount paid to the farmers on account of the paddy purchase, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that a strong case for grant of bail is made out.

¶22

Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed. It is ordered that the applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two local sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance as and when directed

¶23

Accordingly, the present MCRC stands allowed.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy)

JUDGE

Jyoti

Ajay Prakash Nagesh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Prakash Nagesh 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

Smt. Manshi Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivprasad @ Chandoriha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankit Kumar Rahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aman Singh Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prakash Sona @ Chhota Kala Vs State of Chhattisgarh