Partly allowed

Shashikant Jogi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jan 2023MCRCA/1740/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three anticipatory bail applications arising from the same crime involving embezzlement. Anticipatory bail was granted to female applicants Pooja and Seema Agrawal on humanitarian grounds. Applications for male applicants Jitendra Agrawal, Manoj Agrawal, and Shashikant Jogi were rejected based on the material on record.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for female applicants with bond of Rs. 50,000; rejected for male applicants.

Shashikant Jogi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 1719 of 2022
1. Pooja Agrawal, W/o Jitendra Agrawal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Dongri, Police Station Baloda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
2. Jitendra Agrawal, S/o Govind Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Dongri, Police Station Baloda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baloda, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent And MCRCA No. 13 of 2023
1. Seema Agrawal, W/o Kalu Ram Agrawal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Dongri, Police Station Baloda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
2. Manoj Agrawal, S/o Govind Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Dongri, Police Station Baloda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baloda, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent And MCRCA No. 1740 of 2022
Shashikant Jogi, S/o M. P. Jogi, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Murlidih, Thana Mulmula, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent
For Applicants : Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Advocate in MCRCA Nos.1719/2022 and 13/2023 & Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate in MCRCA No.1740/2022 Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, G.A.

¶5

¶6

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶7

Order on Board

¶8

17/01/2023

¶9

Since the aforesaid anticipatory bail applications arise out of the same crime number, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶10

These applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.468/2022 registered at Police Station – Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B, 409, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

Allegation against the present applicants is that they in connivance with each other committed embezzlement to the tune of Rs.4,05,000/in Co-operative Society, Korbi, by registering their name in place of other/actual farmers by Vikas Singh, Computer Operator, at the behest of Shashikant Jogi, who is posted as Agricultural Development Officer. Based on above allegations, the offence has been registered against the applicants.

¶12

Mr. Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel for the applicants in MCRCA Nos.1719/2022 and 13/2023 submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that as soon as the applicants came to know about the alleged deposit of amount in their account, they made an application before the Society for deposit of the said disputed amount and prepared Demand Draft of Rs.4,05,000/- and Rs. 2,08,800/- in the name of Branch Manager, Cooperative Bank, Baloda. & the entire amount has been deposited by the applicants by way of Demand Draft. He also submits that the husband of the applicants were holding Kisan Code and no role was

¶13

¶14

attributed to the applicants. He also submits that an inquiry has also been conducted in this regard and in the inquiry co-accused Vikas Singh, Computer Operator, has been held accountable for the wrong/fradulent entry in the computer in place of original farmers. It is next submitted that no role was attributed to the present applicants and since the amount has been deposited in the accounts of applicants, they have been made accused. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶15

Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant in MCRCA No.1740/2022 submits that the applicant has no role in the alleged crime in question and it is the co-accused Vikas Singh, Computer Operator, who made the forged registration in computer in place of actual farmers. He also submits that an inquiry has also been conducted in this regard and in the inquiry, co-accused Vikas Singh, Computer Operator, has been held accountable for the fraudulent entry in the computer in place of actual farmers. Therefore, the applicant may be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicants in connivance with each other and with intent to gain monetary benefit committed the crime in question. Learned counsel further submits that so far as deposit of amount of Rs.4,05,000/- and Rs.2,08,800/- by the applicant No.1 in MCRCA Nos.1719/2022 and 13/2023 respectively is concerned, the same has been deposited after registration of FIR. In such facts and circumstances of the case, applications filed by the applicants for anticipatory bail may be rejected.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record as also case diary.

¶18

¶19

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation and further considering the fact that applicant No.1-Pooja Agrawal in MCRCA No. 1719/2022 and applicant No.1Seema Agrawal in MCRCA No. 13/2023 are woman having small children, without commenting anything on merit of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant No.1 Pooja Agrawal in MCRCA No. 1719/2022 and applicant No.1-Seema Agrawal in MCRCA No.13/2023.

¶20

Accordingly, MCRCA Nos. 1719/2022 and 13/2023 in respect of applicants No. 1-Pooja Agrawal and Seema Agrawal, respectively are allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants Pooja Agrawal and Seema Agrawal in MCRCA Nos.1719/2022 and 13/2023 respectively, in connection with aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer or the court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions:

¶21

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation/medical examination before the concerned investigating officer as and when required;

¶22

(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 as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

¶26

So far as anticipatory bail applications in respect of applicant No.2Jitendra Agrawal in MCRCA No.1719/2022, applicant No.2-Manoj Agrawal in MCRCA No.13/2023 and Shashikant Jogi in MCRCA No.1740/2022 are concerned, considering the facts situation of the case and their role in the crime in question & further considering the material available in case diary, this Court does not find any strong ground where the applicants be extended privilege of anticipation bail.

¶27

Accordingly, MCRCA Nos. 1719/2022, 13/2023 and 1740/2022 in respect of applicants namely Jitendra Agrawal (A-2), Manoj Agrawal (A-2) and Shashikant Jogi, respectively, are rejected.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶30

pkd

Shashikant Jogi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Jogi 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

Harshdeep Ware Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudhir Gajwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Sharma Vs Mr. Naresh Kumar Verma

Rahul Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sangita Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh