Chattisgarh High Court
Sunil Kumar Kerketta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
M.Cr.C(A) No.167 of 2022
Sunil Kumar Kerketta S/o Shri Gareeb Sai Aged About 23 Years R/o Village
Maharanipur Police Station Tehsil Sitapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur,
District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Non-Applicant
MCRCA No. 205 of 2022
Rajendra Kumar Panna S/o Shri Josef Panna Aged About 45 Years R/o
Shantipara, Kunkuri, Police Station Kunkuri , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station In Charge Police Station Sitapur ,
District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
---- Non-Applicant
MCRCA No. 282 of 2022
Ganesh Prasad Singh S/o Shri Bhola Nath Singh Aged About 46 Years Caste
Uranw, Occupation Service (Electricity Department Permanent R/o Village
Lodhma, Tehsil And Police Station Kunkuri District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
Presently R/o Sitapur Tehsil And Police Station Sitapur District Surguja
Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja
Chhattisgarh.
---- Non-Applicant
MCRCA No. 326 of 2022
Arvind Sagar Kujur S/o Late Shri Raghav Prasad Kujur Aged About 32 Years
(Late Not Mentioned In The Learned Court Below Order Dtd. 14/02/2022) Caste
Uraon, Occupation Service, Office Assistant Gr. I I I, C S P D C L, R/o Village
Chainpur (Majhapara), Police Station Sitapur, Tahsil Mainpat, District Sarguja,
Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur,
District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
---- Non-Applicant
For respective Applicants: Shri Nishikant Sinha, Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Shri
Rohitashva Singh and Shri Dhiraj Wankhede,
Advocates.
For Non-Applicant/State : Shri BP Banjare, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
25.08.2022
1.These 1st anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed by the respective Applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.21/2022 registered at Police Station - Sitapur, District - Surguja (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B & 409 IPC.
2. Prosecution case is that Applicant-Sunil Kumar Karketta was posted as Line Attendant at Petla Distribution Center, Applicant-Rajendra Kumar was posted as Assistant Engineer at Sitapur, Applicant-Ganesh Prasad Singh was posted as Office Assistant, Grade-I at Manpower Distribution Center and Applicant-Arvind Singh was posted as an Office Assistant at Sitapur, Petla. It is alleged that the present Applicants have misused the SAP ID, which has been issued to them for collection of cash and thereby embezzled the funds to the tune of Rs.2,94,29,482/-. Subsequently, in the preliminary enquiry the present Applicants were found involved in the said crime on the basis of which, FIR has been lodged against them.
3. Learned counsels for the Applicants submit that the Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question.
4. Shri Nishikant Sinha, learned Counsel for Sunil Kumar Kerketta submits that the said Applicant was never involved in the collection of funds from any customers as he was a Line Attendant and was purely engaged for attending the maintenance work of the line and has nothing to do with the collection or deposition of any money, a false affidavit was obtained under pressure.
5. Shri Wankhede, learned Counsel for Applicant-Arvind Sagar Kujur submits that he is the whistle blower of the whole incident, who had lodged FIR at PS Sitapur. He further submits that in the affidavit sworn by Applicant Sunil Kumar Kerketta and the contractor's employee namely Srikant Khalkho, the aforesaid crime was confessed by these persons.
6. Shri Singh, learned Counsel for Applicant-Ganesh Prasad Singh submits that this Applicant has made a complaint to Applicant-Rajendra Kumar Panna and alleged that an embezzlement of funds took place in the Department to the tune of more than 86 lacs which was not deposited in the account of the Department.
7. Ms. Kuldeep, learned Counsel for Applicant-Rajendra Kumar Panna submits that all the other Applicants have misused his SAP ID and committed the said offence and this Applicant is not at all involved in the said crime in any manner except for a minor negligence on his part in not supervising his subordinates properly.
8. With the above submissions, learned Counsels for respective Applicants submit that they may be granted anticipatory bail.
9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State strongly opposed the said prayer and submitted that considering the huge scam wherein, the Applicants were prima facie found guilty in the preliminary enquiry on the basis of which, offence as mentioned above has been registered against them, they are not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the nature of allegations and the submissions made, particularly considering the huge fraud committed and also considering that the department has also prima facie conducted an enquiry of the Applicants, wherein they were found guilty, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them.
11.. Accordingly, all the applications are rejected.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya