Chattisgarh High Court
Atish Kumar Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 September, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 733 of 2023
Rahul Shukla S/o Late Shri R.B. Shukla, Aged About 37 Years R/o.
Sun City, Shubham Vihar, Uslapur Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station - Nagri, District -
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
MCRCA No. 714 of 2023 Atish Kumar Verma S/o Shri K. N. Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Jal Vihar Colony, Rudri, P. S. Rudri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through: P. S. Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Adv. in MCRCA No. 733/2023.
Mr. Varunendra Mishra, Adv. in MCRCA No. 714/2023.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Roshan Dubey, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 25/09/2023
1. As both the MCRCAs arise out of the same crime number they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. These applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed by the applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 54/2020 registered at Police Station- Nagri, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 22.10.2019, complainant Anil 2 Kumar Sahu (Banpela) & Atish Kumar Verma lodged a report alleging therein that Dindayal Sahu along with other co-accused persons have taken Rs. 71,66,500/- from 41 persons for providing government jobs in the forest department. During the course of the investigation, the police seized a forged appointment letter from one witness namely Dhaniram Patel. Therefore, the FIR was registered and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the Dindayal Sahu (absconding), Anil Kumar Sahu (Banpela), Ghanshyam Sahu, Dharmendra Sahu.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the main allegation is against the co-accused Anil Kumar Banpela (Sahu) and there is no evidence available against the applicants even though the name of applicant Rahul Shukla is not in the memorandum of the co-accused persons and statement of witnesses under Section 161. Trial was going on and 41 witnesses out of 50 witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. Some of the witnesses rope the name of the applicant only stating that the main accused was told to them that the present applicant Rahul Shukla is a higher officer in the department of forest and he can provide job to them, and only because of this the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution which was allowed by learned trial Court without considering the materials available on record. They further submit that the applicant Rahul Shukla is a clerk in the forest department and the applicant Atish Kumar Verma is working as a private employee. They also submit that co-accused Dindayal Sahu is absconding and other co- accused persons have already been granted regular bail by this Court and the main accused namely Anil Kumar Banpela (Sahu) has also been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 4271/2023 on 30.06.2023, therefore, the present applicants may also be granted 3 benefit of anticipatory bail. The applicants are ready to abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State however opposes the application for anticipatory bail and submits that the present applicants along with other co-accused persons cheated 41 persons in the name of providing government jobs and obtained a huge amount of Rs. 71,66,500/- from the different persons, and their custodial interrogation is necessary for this case, therefore, they may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
6. After hearing rival submissions of the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence in question also considering the material available on record against the present applicants, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, at this stage, I am not inclined to release them on anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, their anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu