Chattisgarh High Court
Anil Choudhary Legha (Mentioned As ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 July, 2022
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4410 of 2022
Anil Choudhary Legha (Mentioned As Lendha) S/o Sohan
Singh Aged About 39 Years 2898, New Housing Board Sector
-13, Bhivani, Haryana.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. Ratanpur, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. A.K. Samantray with Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Raghavendra Verma, G.A. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 12/07/2022
1. The applicant has preferred this First bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.22/2018, registered at Police Station - Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC, Sections 4, 5 6 of Dhan Parichalan Adhiniyam, 1978, Section 10 of Nikshepako ke Hito ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2015.
2. Allegation against the present applicant is that during his tenure as Director of PACL Company, payment of 8 policies to the tune of Rs.1,50,825/-, which were due in the year 2012, 2014 and 2015, could not be made and on being contacted by the complainant at Raipur office, no satisfactory assurance was given citing reason that the inquiry of company is being done by the State Government. Based on this, offence has been registered and the applicant has been arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant 2 is innocent and falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the allegations constituting the alleged crime do not pertain to the period when the applicant was Director in the said company from 05.02.2015 to 11.07.2016. The applicant was appointed as Director in the PACL Limited Company in the year 2015 and the amount of policies have been shown to be due in the year 2012, 2014 and 2015 i.e. prior to his appointment. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant is in custody since 30.04.2022, charge sheet has been filed and there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application. Learned State counsel submits that the applicant is one of the Director of the PACL Company, therefore, the FIR has been registered against him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and further considering the fact that the applicant was appointed as Director in the PACL Company in the year 2015 and the maturity date of policies of 8 policy holders were shown to be due in the year 2012, 2014 and 2015 i.e. prior to his appointment in the company, this Court is inclined to release him on regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
8. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge pkd