Chattisgarh High Court
Domar Singh Chandel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 April, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3195 of 2022
Domar Singh Chandel S/o Shri Mukandi Ram Chandel, Aged About 33
Years R/o Madouda, Tahsil And Police Station Khairagarh, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Daundi Lohara, (Wrongly Mentioned As Balod In Ordersheet Dated
25.06.2021), District Balod (Chhattisgarh), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Tarun Dansena, Advocate
For State : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Govt. Advocate
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
26/04/2022
1. Applicant has filed this third bail application under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in
connection with Crime No.145/2020 registered at Police Station
-Daundi Lohara, District- Balod (CG) for the offence punishable
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution is that the applicant along with one
another co-accused have taken Rs.2 lakh from the complainant on
the pretext of providing job. They have also provided an
appointment order to the complainant on the post of Forest Guard.
When the complainant went to Forest Department, it revealed that
the said appointment order was a forged one and thereafter report
was lodged, based upon which, aforementioned crime was
registered against applicant and two other co-accused persons and
they were arrested.
3. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the crime and the offence as alleged, if
any, is committed by other two accused persons. He also submits
that in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the
complainant, it has come that forged appointment order was
handed over by co-accused Hasan Khan and not by the applicant.
On 3.3.2022, relatives of the applicant have paid Rs.60,000/- to the
complainant and they have undertaken to pay Rs.1 lakh to the
complainant within a period of two months. An agreement to this
effect has been executed by the complainant, copy of which is filed
along with covering memo. He also contended that the applicant
was arrested on 05.07.2020 and thereby he has completed about 1
year and 9 months of pre-trial detention. Offence is triable by
Judicial Magistrate First Class. Conclusion of trial may take some
time. Hence, applicant may be enlarged on regular bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned
counsel for the applicant and would submit that the applicant is
prima facie involved in commission of crime as is appearing from
the complaint as well as statement of complainant recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He is a habitual offender. He was earlier
tried for the similar nature of offence and was convicted also by the
Court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment dated 05.04.2019.
Hence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of allegation and further considering that the allegation of
handing over the forged appointment order is against co-accused
Hasan Khan, period of pre-trial detention of applicant since
05.07.2020, offence to be triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to allow the
bail application.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the
applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon his furnishing a
bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum
to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:-
a) Applicant shall appear before the trial Court regularly on
each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.
b) Applicant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the
prosecution witnesses.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/--/-----/-/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
