Aneesh Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2224 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                  NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       M.CR.C.(A). No. 788 of 2021
Aneesh Sharma, S/o. Late Shri K.N. Sharma, aged about 38 years, R/o.
103, Gole Ka Mandir, Sunrise Residency Bank Colony, Gwalior, Madhya
Pradesh.
                                                               ----Applicant
                                 Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The S.H.O., P.S.- Kumhari, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
                                                           ---- Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board

08/09/2021

1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.181/2020,

registered at Police Station - Kumhari, District - Durg (C.G.) for

offence punishable under Section 409 & 420 of the Indian Penal

Code, the applicant has preferred this second bail application for

grant of anticipatory bail. The first bail application M.Cr.C.(A) No.94

of 2021 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 17.05.2021.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the

applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant

was serving as Senior Manager in Indian Bank, Zonal Office,

Raipur, who is presently under suspension. The applicant has

acted in performance of the duty according to the practice

prevailing showing less non-performing assets (NPA). As regards

the deposits made in the account of wife of the applicant and one

Sumit Kumar, the applicant has explanation that the amount was

the sale proceeds of the property sold by his father. It is submitted

that there is no requirement of any custodial interrogation of the

applicant as all the evidence that has been collected in the

investigation is documentary evidence, which can not be

interpolated by the applicant. Arrest of the applicant is no solution

for the purpose of investigation. Placing reliance on the judgment of

Supreme Court in case of Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,

reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615, and submitted that arrest of

an accused for the purpose of Section 170 of Cr.P.C. is not

necessary as the personal liberty of an individual is important.

Hence, it is prayed that this applicant may be benefited with grant

of anticipatory bail.

3. Per contra learned State counsel opposes the application for grant

of bail and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that

the previous anticipatory bail application of the applicant has been

dismissed on merits. Therefore, this Court can not recall its

decision given on merits. Hence, this application may be rejected.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

case diary and the documents placed on record.

5. Considered the submissions made. The grounds raised by the

applicant in the present application are same, which he had raised

in his previous application, which has been considered in M.Cr.C.

(A) No. 94 of 2021 and dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2021.

Therefore, there are no new circumstances present for

consideration and neither there is any change in circumstances to

be taken note of, therefore, this Court is of the view that this second

application for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438

of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram