Anil Chhatterjee vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4502 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                        NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                CRA No. 1096 of 2022
 Subhajeet Mandal S/o Shri Santosh Mandal Aged About 35 Years R/o Sakin-
  Bhagwanpur, Near Banaras Road Mandir, Nehru Nagar, District Surguja
  (C.G.)
 Dinesh Mandal S/o Govind Mandal Aged About 35 Years R/o Sakin-
  Bhagwanpur, Near Fish Market, District - Surguja (C.G.)
                                                                ---- Appellants
                                    Versus
 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, P.S. Gandhinagar,
  District - Surguja (C.G.)
                                                               ---- Respondent

CRA No. 1002 of 2022  Anil Chhatterjee S/o Late Manmohan Chhatterjee, Aged About 50 Years R/o Darripara, Chowki Manipur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant Versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent CRA No. 999 of 2022  Mukesh Munda S/o Mohar Munda, Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Imli Tree, Near Hanuman Mandir, Darripara, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant Versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent CRA No. 920 of 2022

1. Reeta Mandal W/o Harshit Mandal Aged About 32 Years Occupation- Housewife, R/o Village Chathirama, Police Station Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

2. Lalita Gharami W/o Ravindra Gharami Aged About 36 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Sakalo, Police Station Gandhinagar, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellants Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Mr Amarnath Pandey, Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment On Board 15.07.2022

1. These appeals arising out of same Crime No.115/2022, therefore,

they are being heard analogously and disposed of with a common order.

2. These appeals under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,(hereinafter referred to as"Special Act") have been filed against the order of bail rejection orders passed by the learned Special Judge(Atrocities), Rajnandgaon (CG) rejecting the application u/s 439 CrPC in connection with Crime No.115/2022 registered at police station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 306 of IPC and Section 3(2-5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for Short' the Act').

3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that present appellants along with

co-accused persons purchased the land of the deceased in the name of Mukesh Munda and thereafter withdrawn the consideration amount in a fraudulent manner Rs.6 lakhs which was deposited in the account of the deceased(Makhan). Deceased Makhan Lal has lodged a report on 09.02.2022 at Police Station Gandhinagar for such fraudulent transaction. It is further alleged that due to such frustration the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison on 10.02.2022. the deceased was taken to the District Hospital where he died during treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are

innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and further

submits that there are total 9 accused persons who have been charged for the said offences out of which 8 accused persons have filed appeals before this Court for grant of bail. They further submit that another co-accused Prakash [email protected] Surya Prakash who was also charged in the same offence has already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.905 of 2022 vide order dated 29.06.2022. It is further submits that the case of present appellants is also on same footing to the case of Prakash [email protected] Surya Prakash Sahu and similar allegations have been made in the charge-sheet. He further submits that appellants are in jail 05.04.2022 and investigation is complete, trial is likely to take some time, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the

notice issued to complainant has been served and opposes these applications and submits that from the evidence so far collected by the prosecution it appears that the appellants have fraudulently sold the land of the deceased(Makhan) and sale consideration has also been withdrawn by them. However he submits that investigation is complete and custodial interrogation of appellants is not required at this stage but they will influence the witnesses. However, on being asked, whether the case of present appellants is identical to that of Prakash Sahu who has already been granted bail by this Court, State counsel submits that the case of present appellants is not worse than that of Prakash Sahu.

6. After hearing counsel for the parties, having regard to the factual

situation of this case, looking to the fact that the allegations which have been leveled against the appellants are similar to that of Prakash Sahu who has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.06.2022 and also looking to the fact that the main allegations have been leveled against the accused [email protected] Vishal Majumdar. Looking to the detention period, trial may take some time and charge sheet has been filed, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow these appeals.

7. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed, therefore the impugned order

passed by Court below is set aside and it is directed that appellants

shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-each with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court the appellants shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

(i) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court.

(ii) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

(iii) They shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

8. It is made clear that each of the appellants shall make their presence

before Police Station Gandhi Nagar for twice in a month on 1 st and 3rd Mondays till the disposal of the case. It is also made clear that if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the appellants, the State would be free to move for cancellation of bail. -

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge parul