Rajnish Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3967 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                      NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         MCRC No. 4609 of 2022

    Rajnish Kumar Patel, S/o Motilal Patel, aged about 41 Years, R/o
      Akash Nagar, Electric Sub Station, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Teshil and
      District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                 ----Applicant

                                  Versus

    State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur,
      Tehsil and District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                           ----Non-applicant



For Applicant      Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
For State          Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Government Advocate.
For Objector       Mr. Amritansh Shukla, Advocate.

                Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya
                           Order on Board

23.06.2022

   1.

Earlier the applicant had filed MCRC No.3036 of 2021 which was

dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated

03.08.2021 with liberty to file a fresh application if the trial is not

concluded within a period of 9 months from today.

2. The applicant has preferred this second bail application under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as he has been arrested in connection

with Crime No.1131/2020 registered at Police Station Sarkanda,

Bilaspur, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B,

406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the applicant along with other

co-accused persons opened a fraud account

No.660300310000117 in the name of Right Water Solution

(Proprietorship) in Bank of Baroda, Branch Khamtarai, Bilaspur.

The accused persons obtained a total amount of Rs.20,98,098/-

from seven municipal corporations during the period from

22.08.2019 to 11.09.2020 without the knowledge of the said

company and got the said amount fraudulently transferred in their

account. On report being lodged to the above effect, the

aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant and

other co-accused persons.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an

innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case.

There is no cheating or criminal breach of trust or forgery by the

applicant. The applicant is 41 years old, he is in jail since

13.04.2021, there is no apprehension of his absconding or

tampering with the evidence, conclusion of trial is likely to take

some time and that co-accused person namely Sandeep Singh

Chandel has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide

order dated 29.04.2022 and, therefore, the applicants be

released on bail on the ground of parity.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the

Objector oppose the bail application.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the matter of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

observed in Para-22 of the said judgment as under:

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

8. In the matter of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of

Maharashtra & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2020

arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5598 of 2020, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has reiterated certain factors which are to be kept in mind

while considering the matters for grant of bail to the accused. In

Para-57 of the said judgment, it has been observed as under:

57. While considering an application for the grant of bail under Article 226 in a suitable case, the Hight Court must consider the settled factors which emerge from the precedents of this Court. These factors can be summarized as follows:

i. The nature of the alleged offence, the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of a conviction;

ii. Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the witness or being a threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

iii. The possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial or the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;

iv. The antecedents of and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;

v. Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence are made out, on the basis of the allegations as they stand, in the FIR; and vi. The significant interest of the public or the State and other similar considerations.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature

of allegation against the present applicant, the fact that applicant

is in jail since 13.04.2021, in particular the pre-trial detention of

the applicant, who is 41 years old, keeping in view the judgments

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami case

and Sanjay Chandra case (supra), the trial is not concluded till

now and further considering the fact that the co-accused person

namely Sandeep Singh Chandel has already been granted

regular bail by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2022 passed in

MCRC No.3054 of 2022 and there is no likelihood of the

applicant tampering with the evidence or absconding as admitted

by counsel for the parties and conclusion of trial may take some

time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am

inclined to allow this application. It is directed that in the event of

applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the

following conditions:-

(i) he 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,

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

(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

(iv) he shall strictly follow the COVID-19 protocol issued by the Central Government / State Government / Local Authority.

(v) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned

police station forthwith who shall inform the trial Court in the

event of applicant involving himself in any offence in future.

Sd/-

Gautam Chourdiya Judge

Akhilesh