Allowed

Yadurai Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Mar 2023MCRCA/12/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court judgment allows three anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 438 CrPC. The applicants, alleged to be involved in a ₹77 lakhs embezzlement case at a Paddy Procurement Centre, were apprehended arrest based on a co-accused's memo. The court granted bail noting lack of specific allegations in the enquiry report and limited roles of the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on execution of personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- subject to standard conditions of availability and non-interference.

Yadurai Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1739 of 2022

¶5

Vipin Singh Chandel S/o Rajkumar Singh Chandel, Aged About 29 Years R/o Jagdishchand Tiwari Ward No. 17, Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent

¶8

And

¶9

M.Cr.C.(A) No. 12 of 2023

¶10

Yadurai Singh S/o Rajeshwar Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Hirri, P.S. And Tah. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Applicant Vs

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Shivrinarayan, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

And

¶15

M.Cr.C.(A) No. 136 of 2023

¶16

Satyendra Singh Chandel S/o Shri Damodar Singh Chandel Aged About 36 Years R/o Village And Post Rasouta, Police Station Pamgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

---- Applicant

¶18

¶19

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

	---- Respondent
For the Applicants :	Shri Sourabh Sharma, Shri Ravindra Sharma and Ms. Seema Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent/State :	Shri Avinash Mishra, G.A.

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey ORDER

06.03.2023

Heard.

All the three bail applications are being decided by this common order as they arise out from same crime number. These are the first bail applications under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail, who are apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.121 of 2022 registered at Police Station – Shivrinarayan, District JanjgirChampa, for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

As per prosecution story, on 6.4.2022, a written complaint was filed by Ashwani Kumar Sahu, Supervisor of District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur to the effect that in-charge of Paddy Procurement Centre, Rahod, District Janjgir-Champa has committed embezzlement and has caused loss in the tune of Rs.77,12,494.49 to the society. Prior to it, a complaint was made and an enquiry was conducted. Enquiry report was submitted on 11.2.2022 where it was found that the in-charge of Paddy Procurement Centre, namely, Ramayan Yadav has committed embezzlement and in physical verification there was shortage of paddy for the tune of Rs.77,12,494.49. FIR was registered against Ramayan Yadav and others. At the time of filing of final charge-sheet, the names of the present applicants have been added as accused on the basis of the memorandum of Ramayan Yadav.

¶27

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the names of the present applicants were not available in the enquiry report and there was no

¶28

¶29

specific allegation against them. They would further submit that the main allegation was against co-accused – Ramayan Yadav, who has already been arrested.

¶30

Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that Vipin Singh Chandel, who is applicant in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1739 of 2022 was posted as Computer Operator, Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that Yadurai Singh, who is applicant in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 12 of 2023 was not posted there but in absence of one employee, namely, Sakharam, he distributed gunny bags to the beneficiaries whereas, Ms. Seema Singh, learned counsel appearing for Satyendra Singh Chandel, who is applicant in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 136 of 2023 would submit that vide order dated 31.3.2021, the applicant was transferred from Primary Society Sasha to Primary Society Dhangaon and at the time of incident, he was not posted there. Learned counsels for the applicants would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicants.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail applications and the arguments submitted in this respect. Learned State counsel would submit that there is specific role played by the present applicants. The amount of embezzlement is more than Rs.77,00,000/-. The main accused, namely, Ramayan Yadav has made allegation against all the applicants in his memorandum statement. He would also submit that though the names of the present applicants were not mentioned in the FIR but later on, at the time of filing of final charge-sheet, their names were added, looking to their participation in the crime, he would submit that the applications preferred by the respective applicants are liable to be dismissed.

¶32

¶33

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the case-diary with utmost circumspection.

¶34

From the perusal of case-diary, it appears that in the paddy purchase for the financial year 2021-22 there were serious allegations against in-charge of that Centre, therefore, an order was passed for physical verification on 9.2.2022. An enquiry was conducted by a committee and on 11.2.2022, a report was submitted, where it is found that the in-charge of Paddy Procurement Centre, namely, Ramayan Yadav, is main culprit who has committed embezzlement in paddy purchase and has caused loss to the society in the tune of Rs.77,12,494.49. The co-accused, Ramayan Yadav was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded by the police in which, he has made allegations against present applicants. In the case-diary, there is no material available against the present applicants and mere on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused, the present applicants have been arrayed as accused. Further considering the fact that the applicant, namely, Satyendra Singh Chandel, who was transferred vide order 31.3.2021 prior to purchase of paddy, Yadurai Singh was not involved in purchase of paddy and Vipin Singh Chandel was working as Computer Operator, I am inclined to allow the bail application filed by the applicants in all the cases.

¶35

Accordingly, the bail applications filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.PC. are allowed . It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid offences, they shall be released on bail by the Officer arresting them on each of them executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating

¶36

¶37

Officer. They shall also abide by the following conditions:

¶38

'(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶39

(ii) that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

The observations made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of the applicant on the application for grant of anticipatory bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by the observations made in the course of this order.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶45

Nimmi

Yadurai Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadurai Singh 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

Mahendra Kumar Sinha Vs Mahesh Kumar Sinha

Chhotelal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mayashankar Yadav Vs Smt. Neelam Yadav

Sukhnandan Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Budhram Bhardwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh