Chattisgarh High Court
Devprasad Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 July, 2022
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 684 of 2022
1.
Devprasad Sahu S/o Jhaduram Sahu, Aged About 79 Years,
2. Virendra Sahu S/o Udal Prasad Sahu Aged, About 43 Years,
3. Yashwant Sahu S/o Udal Prasad Sahu, Aged About 47 Years,
All are R/o Village Tarenga, Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin),
District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (CG).
---- Applicants
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer,
Police Station Bhatapara, (Gramin), District Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.).
---- Non-Applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate.
For State/Non-applicant : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Justice Shri Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
22/07/2022
1) The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. as they are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Crime No. 527/2021 registered at Police Station
Bhatapara, (Gramin), District Balodabazar-Bhathapara (C.G.) for
the offence punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468,
471/34 of Indian Penal Code.
2) Case of the prosecution, in brief is that present case is registered
against the present applicants on the basis of complaint made
by the complainant namely Dukalha Ram & his son Ram Kumar
Sahu under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC,
Bhatapara against applicants praying for an order to the Police
to register the criminal case against the applicants for offence
punishable under Section 420, 466, 467, 468 & 471/34 of IPC.
On the basis of order of the Court below to register the criminal
case against applicants in the said section. The complainant
made the complaint in the Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin),
District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) and order of the Court
below that the Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) registered the criminal case
against the applicants regarding the said section. The
complainant alleged that a piece of land measuring 75 decimals
out of Khasra No. 1316/4 situated in village Tarenga, Police
Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District Balodabazar-Bhatapara
(C.G.) and present applicants alongwith other accused Tikaram
so-called document has been forged the govt. document and
made the land as 7.5 decimals in place of 75 decimals and used
as genuine document. Further, it is alleged that the accused
Tikaram used the aforesaid document as genuine and obtained
the judgment and decree before Court below. It is alleged that
present applicants cheated to the complainant by way of
obtaining the judgment and decree and got the benefit by way of
forged document. The report has been lodged by the
complainant in the Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) against present accused/
applicants in above mentioned offence.
3) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants
are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in this
case. He submits that applicant No. 1 is 79 years of age and
applicant Nos.2 & 3 are the family members of the main accused
Tikaram Sahu against whom the alleged offence of forgery of
certain documents and getting a decree based on those forged
documents was registered by the Magistrate. Simply because
they are the family members of the main accused Tikaram, with
the aid of Section 34 they have been implicated in this case. The
dispute appears to be of civil nature and certain litigations were
also pending and decree in the civil suit was also passed and
subsequently set aside. Therefore, looking to the checkered
history, it cannot be said that from the inception of the offence,
these applicants are involved. Therefore, looking to the entire
facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants may be
enlarged on anticipatory bail and they are ready and willing to
comply with the conditions so imposed.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State objected that
investigation is going on and the report was lodged by an order
of the Magistrate passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail.
5) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to
the nature of allegations against the applicants, that some
litigations with regard to suit property is pending, looking to the
age of applicant No. 1 i.e. 79 years, and the role of applicant
Nos. 2 & 3, there is no criminal antecedents of the applicants, as
admitted by the State Counsel no custodial interrogation of these
applicants is required, though the matter is under investigation,
however, no apprehension is shown by the State Counsel of
their absconding or tampering with or influencing the witnesses,
without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court is
of the opinion that present is a fit case for granting anticipatory
bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
7) It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in
connection with the aforesaid crime, they shall be released on
bail by the Arresting Officer on each of them furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of
Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
Applicants shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-
i. they shall make themselves available for interrogation
before the Police as and when required,
ii. 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 him from disclosing such fact
to the Court or to the Investigating Officer,
iii. they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to
fair and expeditious trial,
iv. they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every
date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial
and
v. they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar
nature in future.
It is made clear that the above observations are only for
deciding this bail application. Needless to state that the Trial
Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with
law.
The State as well as the victim/complainant are at liberty to
file an application regarding cancellation of this bail application in
the event of applicants involving themselves in similar offence in
future.
-Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Chandrakant
