Allowed

Mohammed Sabir Razavi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Mar 2023MCRCA/30/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh considered an application for anticipatory bail filed by a Patwari under Section 438 CrPC in connection with fraud allegations. The Court noted the applicant was a government servant who might have made a mistake rather than committed a deliberate crime. The application was allowed with directions to furnish a personal bond and appear for trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with conditions to appear for interrogation and trial.

Mohammed Sabir Razavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No.30 of 2023

¶5

Mohammed Sabir Razavi S/o Mohammed Ayoob Aged About 61 Years R/o Patnampara 1, Village And Post Sukma District Sukma Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sukma District Sukma Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Shakti Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer

¶8

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶9

09.03.2023

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.95/2022, registered at Police Station Sukma, District Sukma (CG), for the commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

¶12

As per prosecution story, the applicant is a Patwari of Circle No.11 Mudtonda, Revenue Circle Sukma, District Sukma. The allegation against the present applicant is that he manipulated the map of Survey No.430/2 and 515/1, to extend benefit to Sayeed Madar &

¶13

¶14

Shekh Gulam. On such complaint, an enquiry was conducted in pursuance of the order passed by the Collector and in the enquiry, it is found that the present applicant has committed mistake and he has been placed under suspension. On the basis of enquiry report, an FIR was lodged by the Tahsildar, consequently, same was registered on 05.12.2022 for offences as stated above.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is a Patwari and while discharging his duty, he might have committed some mistakes but not a single agriculturist has suffered loss. He would further submit that a departmental enquiry is going on same set of facts and allegations and thereafter, an FIR has also been lodged against him. He would further submit that the present applicant is a Government servant and his arrest would affect his service career.

¶16

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State would oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶17

Having considered the fact that present applicant is a Patwari, a Government servant and as per contention of the applicant, on account of some mistake, the map of particular area got changed and later on, same has been corrected. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The MCRCA application is allowed.

¶18

¶19

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions:-

¶20

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

¶21

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

The observation made in the course of this order or only for considering the case of the applicant. The concerned Trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by the observation made in the course of this order.

¶25

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶26

Rekha

Mohammed Sabir Razavi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Sabir Razavi 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

Yadurai Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukhnandan Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Toman Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tarun Kumar Dutta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santu Malik Vs State of Chhattisgarh