Chattisgarh High Court
Devendra Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 June, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 60 of 2021
• Devendra Pandey S/o Late Kashiprasad Pandey Aged About 59
Years R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar Korba, Tehsil And District
Korba Chhattisgarh.
---- Appilcant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Urga, District
Korba Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Manoj Paranjape, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri B.P.Banjare, Dy.GA
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order On Board By Virtual Hearing
21/06/2021
This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 370/2012
registered at Police Station Urga, district Korba (CG) for the offence
punishable under Sections 409,420,467,468,471 read with Section
120-B and 34 IPC.
Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.04.2012 report was
lodged by the complainant who is a District Marketing Officer against
five accused persons on the allegation that they have misappropriated
amount of Rs. 11061576.00 at Paddy Procurement Centre. Sohagpur.
It is alleged that neither in the final report nor in the challan, name of
the present applicant was not mentioned. It is further case of
prosecution that after investigation and final charge sheet, vide
judgment of acquittal dated 03.01.2020, all the accused persons were
acquitted. However, in the closure report, the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Korba has held that except the statement of one of the co-
accused namely Khagesh Pratap Singh, there is no evidence against
the applicant. It is alleged that on the basis of the statement of the co-
accused, the JMFS, Korba has refused to accept the closure report
and observed that the matter requires further investigation in respect
of the present applicant.
Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that only
with a malafide intention, the co-accused has named the present
applicant. He submits that though the trial has been concluded and all
the accused persons have been acquitted, it has been directed for re-
investigation. Lastly, he submits that in the present circumstances of
the pandemic Covid-19, the investigation will take time and therefore
he may be granted bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
bail application.
Having heard counsel for the parties and considering the totality
of the facts, in particular, the nature of allegation against the applicant,
this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to
the applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed
that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the
aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail on his executing a
personal bond in sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety to the
satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer or the court
concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and
conditions:
(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation/
medical examination before the concerned investigating officer
as and when required;
(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that the applicant shall not act in any manner which will be
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and
every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
suguna
