Chattisgarh High Court
Harishankar Vaidya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 December, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9023 of 2022
Harishankar Vaidya S/o Late Anil Kumar Vaidya Aged About 39
Years R/o Joot Mil, Infront Of Police Chowki, Raigarh Chowki,
Raigarh Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Shrinagar, Near Sharda
Samudayik Bhawan, Shivanand Nagar, Khamtarai, Police
Station Khamtarai District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For the Applicant/s :- Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Navin
Shukla, Advocate
For the State :- Ms. Usha Chandraker, PL
_______________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,
Order on Board
09.12.2022
The applicant has preferred this Third bail application under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in
connection with crime No. 438 of 2019 registered in Police Station
Khamtarai, District Raipur, CG for offence punishable under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC. The first bail application was
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh application as and
when occasion arises vide order dated 25.03.2021 passed in MCRC
No. 7131 of 2020 and the Second bail application was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to repeat their prayer, if the trial is not concluded
within a period of 12 months from today vide order dated 22.09.2021
passed in MCRC No. 5712 of 2021.
2. Case of the prosecution story in brief is that the applicant and his
wife took in total 3.25 lacs rupees from different person for providing
them job and have given them fake appointment letter. It is alleged that
from one Amit Yadav in the month of January 2017 applicant has taken
Rs. 1,00,000/- and in December 2018 Rs. 2,00,000/- from Surendra
Yadav residence and have given appointment letter and said that when
he would be giving Rs. 25,000/- in March 2019 he would be giving
posting order, but when no posting was being given, the report has
been lodged and after investigation the challan has been submitted
against the applicant and his wife.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not
committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case,
applicant is in jail since 25.01.2020, charge-sheet has been filed. She
further submits that the prosecution has projected 28 witnesses out of
which till date only single witness has been examined, trial is likely to
take some time. She further submits that custodial interrogation is not
required because he is in jail almost 2 years and 10 months. She
further submits that the appellant has already been granted by the co-
ordinate bench vide order dated 26.11.2020 passed in MCRC No. 5940
of 2020, therefore he may be enlarged on bail. She placed reliance on
a recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Another reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577 and Sanjay Chandra
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2012 SC 830.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes
the bail application and submits that the allegations against the present
applicant is serious in nature. He further submits that huge amount has
been taken by the applicant from different person in the name of
providing them Government Job and all endevours would be made by
the prosecution to conclude the trial, therefore, he is not entitled for
grant of bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions, looking to the nature of allegations, period of detention of
the applicant and trial is likely to take time, applicant has already been
granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench, without commenting anything on
merits, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the
bail application is allowed.
6. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on
following conditions :-
a) He shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on each and
every date, unless exempted from appearance.
b) He shall not make any attempt to tamper or influence with the
prosecution witnesses.
7. It is also made clear that the complainant or State is at liberty to
move an application regarding cancellation of bail of the applicant in the
event of applicant involving himself in similar offence in future.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
PAWAN
