Allowed

Khelsai Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Aug 2023MCRCA/596/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to three applicants facing charges of cheating and criminal conspiracy. The court noted that the alleged shortage of paddy was rectified, the FIR was to be withdrawn, and co-accused had already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The M.Cr.C.(A) is allowed; applicants must execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety each.

Khelsai Rajwade Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 596 of 2023

¶5

Khelsai Rajwade S/o Jwala Prasad Rajwade Aged About 26 Years CasteRajwar, R/o Village-Pachira, Police Station, Tehsil And, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Aged About 37 Years Years, By CasteRajwar, R/o Village- Sapakara, Police Station, Tehsil And, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

3. Rampyari Dewangan D/o Shri Ram Dewangan Aged About 35 Years By Caste- Rajwar, R/o Village- Gopalpur, Police Station And, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police StationSurajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent

¶10

For applicants : Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Lalit Jangde, P.L.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

04.08.2023

¶14

This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of anticipatory bail, who have apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 149/2022, registered at Police Station– Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 408/34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainants are working as Co-operative inspector, Food Inspector, and Branch Manager District Co-operative Central Bank, Surajpur. They have gone for inspection of

¶16

¶17

Paddy Procurement Centre on 02.04.2022 and 04.04.2022 and it was on physical verification found that the applicants and other co-accused caused huge loss to the Paddy Procurement Center, Mani by embezzling amounting of Rs. 41,70,642/- during the procurement of paddy in the marketing year 2021-22. On this basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered.

¶18

Further case of the prosecution is that in the year 2021-22, a total of 50,947,60 quintals of paddy has been purchased, in which 43,850,00 quintals have been delivered to millers and 4991, 85 quintals of paddy has been delivered to the collection center. According to the online report of the procurement center, 2,105,75 quintals of paddy was remained. When it was on physical verification, it was found that 2102.55 quintals of paddy was missing amounting to Rs. 40,78,947/and 849 pieces of gunny bags were found empty in the procurement Cener Mani whose value is Rs. 12,735 / -. Due to which the government has suffered an economic loss of Rs. 4170542 / -. Thus, an FIR was registered before Police Station Surajpur bearing Crime No. 149/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 420, 408/34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

Learned Counsel for applicants would submit that after registration of FIR, the entire shortage of paddy was already supplied to the millers. He would further submit that Nodal Officer, Distt. Co-opertve Central Bank, Surajpur has forwarded a letter to the Collector on 11.10.2022 stating that no loss has been caused to the government and step to be taken for cancellation of FIR. He would further submit that the other co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, he would pray that the present applicants may be released on bail.

¶20

¶21

On the last date of hearing, this Court has directed to the State Counsel for appearance of officers of Marketing Federation and Food Inspector before this Court to explain the factual matrix. Today they appeared and submitted that the paddy which was alleged to have been shortage is already given to the miller and at the present there is no shortage. This information has already been provided to the prosecution. They would further submit that now there is no dispute about quantity of paddy and they have already proceeded to withdraw the FIR.

¶22

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

¶23

Considering the aforesaid submission made by the parties that the allegations for deficit of paddy has already been settled, rectified and subsequent developments that have transpired the case that complainant has already moved for withdrawal of the FIR and also considering the fact that the other co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail, I am inclined to give benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to the applicants.

¶24

Consequently, the M.Cr.C.(A) is allowed.

¶25

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid offence, they shall be released on bail by the officer arresting them, on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicants shall also abide by the following conditions :

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

(ii) that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat undue influence to the prosecution witnesses. (iii) the applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶31

Khelsai Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khelsai Rajwade 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

Smt. Rukhmani Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandeep Kumar Jha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pushpa Parganiha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyamnath Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sankarshan Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh