Chattisgarh High Court
Rajkishore Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 November, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1385 of 2022
Rajkishore Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o Shri Rampravesh Singh,
R/o Village Mudpaar, Post - Selud, Thana Uttai, Tahsil Patan, District
Durg, CG ---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station
Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondent
AND MCRCA No. 1593 of 2022 Sewak Ram Tandi, Aged about 43 years, S/o Makhan Lal, R/o House No. 13, Ward No. 08, Amethi, District Mahasamund, CG
--- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondent For Applicant - Shri Y.C. Sharma Sr. Advocate with Shri Aseem Bhagwat Gopal, Advocate For State - Smt. Usha Chandrakar, PL Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput 30/11/2022 Since both these applications pertain to same Crime No. 107/2022 registered at PS Magarlod, District Dhamtari, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been fled by the applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with the aforesaid Crime Number for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 IPC.
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that FIR was lodged against the applicants and other accused persons that in village Sargi, Tahsil Magarlod sand mining lease was granted to co-accused Jitendra Kumar Mandal for the period 18.5.2020 to 17.5.2022 and for transportation temporary contract was given by the Licensing Authority, District Dhamtari. It is alleged that the applicants and other accused persons prepared the false royalty papers for 10 transport vehicles and put the office seal of Licensing Authority of Mining Branch, District Dhamtari, on the paper and thereby caused loss to the Government.
4. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are the employees of Jitendra Kumar Mandal whose names are given in the said mining lease. The allegation is that the applicants along with other accused persons have printed forged royality pass and thereby caused loss to the Government. He further submits that since they are the employees, they have no authority to get it printed, even otherwise, they have not gained anything which is requirement of Section 415 of the IPC to attrach the provisions of cheating. At the most, an offence u/s 465 IPC is made out against the applicants which is punishable for a maximum period of two years and it is a bailable offence. He submits that since the applicants are low paid employees, even otherwise, notice u.s 41(A) of the CrPC has not been issued to the present applicants and compliance of the decision in the matter of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 has not been made. In these circumstances, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail. He submits that the applicants are ready and willing to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail to them.
5. On the other hand, State counsel opposes the application for anticipatory bail and submits that looking to the allegations made against the applicants, and that the investigation is going on and, they are not not entitled for anticipatory bail.
6. Having thus heard counsel for the parties, considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations made against the applicants, and the material collected by the prosecution so far, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a ft case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer, with the following terms and conditions:
(I) that the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned investigating officer as and when required;
(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 so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that the applicants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv) that they shall not indulge in the like acts in future.
7. It is made clear that the observations here-in-above are only for the purpose of deciding the anticipatory bail applications and the trial Court will decide the case on its own merits without being infuenced by any observation made herein. If any of the above conditions is violated by the applicants, the State will be at liberty to fle the application for cancellation of bail being granted to them.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi