Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Abhay Barapatre And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh 35 Cra/144/2018 ... on 30 July, 2018

                                         1

                                                                           NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              MCRC No. 4933 of 2018

   1. Abhay Barapatre, S/o Shri Gajanan Barapatre (wrongly written as Gajanand
      Barpatre) Aged About 32 Years R/o Plot No. 240, Friend Colony Police
      Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur ( Maharastra )

   2. Yuvraj Sakhare S/o Shri Shyam Sakhare Aged About 29 Years R/o T. A.
      Friend Colony , Police Station Gittikhadan Nagpur ( Maharastra )

                                                                    ---- Applicants

                                     Versus

   •   State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station Kotwali
       Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh

                                                                 ---- Respondent

For Applicants : Shri GV Barpatre, Advocate with Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Astha Shukla PL for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 30/07/2018

1. This is the First Bail Application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested on 24.01.2018 in connection with Crime No.125/2016 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B/34 IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, a report was made by one Neeraj Pawar that the present applicants in connivance with the others in order to provide a Gas Agency to him and others prepared false documents and thus by playing fraud, an amount of Rs.22,75,000/- was received. Thereby the offence has been committed.

2

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants have been falsely implicated. They further submit that the present applicants have also been deceived, which would be evident from the appointment letter of Amay Yadav as they were deployed by Amay Yadav and they have not received any amount instead they worked under the instructions of Amay Yadav, therefore, the applicants may be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

5. Perused the case-diary. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case and the documents filed along with the bail application and also taking into that the charge-sheet in this case has been filed, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail.

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They are directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said Court.

Sd/-

Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu