Dismissed

Ajju Kumar Bareth v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Apr 2024MCRCA/237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the applicant's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court refused bail citing the applicant's involvement in misappropriating funds, the fact that a portion was deposited, and the existence of a prior criminal antecedent.

What did the court decide?

The application for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed.

Ajju Kumar Bareth Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M. Cr. C. (A) No. 237 of 2024

¶5

Ajju Kumar Bareth, S/o Shri Tijram Bareth, aged about 33 years, Occupation – Private Employee, R/o Mandipara Heerpur, Chandrapur, Police Station – Chandrapur, District – Sakti (C.G.)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Chhatisgarh, through : the officer in charge of Police Station – Jutmill, District – Raigarh (C.G.)

¶9

----Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Vaibhav K. Agrawal, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Order On Board

19-04-2024

Heard.

1. The applicant has preferred this first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 49/2024 registered at police station Jutmill, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 26.01.2024 complainant Ravi Kumar Suryawanshi, Branch Manager of Vector Finance Private Limited, Branch Savitri Nagar, Raigarh lodged FIR against the present applicant alleging that the present applicant was posted as Branch Manager in aforesaid company from 18.02.2021 to 01.07.2023, in between, he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,11,312/-, which was deposited by the customers of the aforesaid Finance Company and thereby he committed criminal breach of trust, despite being employee of the Company. Based on

¶17

¶18

above facts, present crime has been registered against the present applicant.

¶19

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case, he has already deposited Rs.96,620/- in the Bank. He would further submit that this is first crime registered against the applicant, hence, the applicant may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶20

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that despite being Manager of Vector Finance Company Limited, he embezzled aforesaid amount of Finance Company. He would further one previous criminal antecedent has been reported against the applicant relating to offence under Section 376 of the IPC registered at police Station Juit Mill, Raipur bearing Crime No. 241/2023, hence, the applicant is not entiled for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶21

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused case diary as well as material placed on record.

¶22

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts of the case, particularly, considering the fact that applicant has allegedly deposited some of the embezzled amount, which prima facie shows his involvement in the commission of instant crime; and also considering the fact that one previous criminal antecedent has been reported against the applicant; hence, I am not inclined to allow his anticipatory bail application.

¶23

7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed by the present applicant is dismissed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶26

Amit/-

¶27

¶28

Ajju Kumar Bareth v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajju Kumar Bareth v. the 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

Krishna Parik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Kumar Lodhi Vs Tekchand Lodhi

Rajkumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kavita Acharya Vs Prashant Acharya

Sanni Nandwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dileep Korram Vs State of Chhattisgarh