Chattisgarh High Court
Dinesh Mandal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1095 of 2022
1. Dinesh Mandal S/o Govind Mandal Aged About 35 Years R/o Sakin-
Bhagwanpur, Near Fish Market, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh
2. Subhajeet Mandal S/o Shri Santosh Mandal Aged About 35 Years R/o
Sakin- Bhagwanpur, Near Banaras Road Mandir, Nehru Nagar, District
Surguja, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Gandhinagar,
District Surguja, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
CRA No. 993 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.,
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Gandhinagar, District
Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
CRA No. 991 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. 906 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 Appellants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Mr. Amarnath Pandey,
Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocates
For Respondent/State : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Dy. A.G.
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment On Board
15.07.2022
1. These appeals arising out of the same Crime No.59/2022, 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 bail rejection orders
passed by the learned Special Judge(Atrocities), Ambikapur(CG)
rejecting the application u/s 439 CrPC in connection with Crime
No.59/2022 registered at police station Gandhinagar, District Surguja
(CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468,
471, 34 of IPC and Section 3(2-5) of SC/ST Act.
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 09.02.2022, complainant
Makhan(now deceased, a tribal) lodged a written complaint that he is
owner of the land bearing Khasra No.317,1, area 0.390 hecatre at
village Digma out of said land 0.140 Hectare land was sold to the
appellant Mukesh Munda fraudulently and sale deed has been
executed but he has not received any amount towards the alleged
sale consideration. An enquiry was conducted and it was found that
the present appellants and other co-accused persons have mutated
the land of complainant Makhan falsely fabricated Rin Pushtika and
amount has been withdrawn from the bank account of complainant
Makhan. It is further alleged that the said land was sold fraudulently in
the name of Mukesh Munda and no amount of consideration was
given to the seller in lieu of the said registry and complainant did not
receive any cheque amount. During investigation memorandum of
Rahul Vishwakarma was recorded, wherein he has said that Prakash
Sahu is land broker and buying the land of poor tribals at work price
and selling it at high price and they planned to take away land of
Makhan, thereafter conspiracy was hatched and accused Lalita tried
to entice Makhan. Makhan got ready to give some land to Lalita.
Thereafter, because Lalita is non tribal therefore, accused Mukesh
Munda was used as a proxy buyer and on 07.01.2022 the registry was
3
done and two cheques of amount of Rs.3 lacs and Rs.4 lacs was
given by Mukesh Munda. Subsequently, this amount was fraudulently
withdrawn by the accused persons by using ATM card of the
complainant. Later on Makhan committed suicide and a seperate
crime has been registered. Charge-sheet has already been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are total 9
accused persons who have been charged for the said commission of
offence out of which 8 accused persons have filed present appeals
before this Court for grant of bail. They further submit that another co-
accused namely Prakash Sahu @ Surya Prakash Sahu who was also
charged in the same offence has already been granted bail by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.885 of 2022 vide
order dated 23.06.2022. It is further submitted that the case of present
appellants is similar to the case of Prakash Sahu @ Surya Prakash
Sahu, similar allegations have been made in the charge-sheet. They
further submit that appellants are in jail 21.02.2022, and 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 the prayer
and submits serious allegations of forgery against the appellants and
further submits that they have committed criminal conspiracy to cheat
the complainant/deceased Makhan. Only because the charge-sheet
has been filed and investigation is complete, they are not entitled for
grant of bail, however, on being asked whether case of present
appellants is similar to that of Prakash Sahu who has been enlarged
on bail by co-ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 23.6.2022,
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 allegations which have been
leveled against the appellants and looking to the fact that similarly
situated co-accused Prakash [email protected] Surya Prakash 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
4
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, 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
attendance before Police Station Gandhi Nagar for twice in a month
on 1st and 3rd Mondays till the disposal of the cases. It is also made
clear that if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the
appellants, the State/victim would be free to move for cancellation of
bail.
-
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Parul
