Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Mewa Chopra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 November, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8757 of 2022
Smt. Mewa Chopra W/o O. P. Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o F - 2,
Bhavna Nagar, Police Station - Khamhariya, Tahsil Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -
Balko Nagar Korba, Tahsil Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.
----Non-applicant
For Applicant Shri Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate.
For State Shri Adil Minhaj, G.A. and Shri B.P. Banjare, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
14/11/2022
1. This is the Second Bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2. Her first bail application was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order
dated 17/06/2021 in MCRC No. 1870 of 2021. Instant application filed by
the applicant for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.14/2021
registered at Police Station Balko Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) for
the offence under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC.
3. Facts
of the case in brief is that applicant obtained money from
complainant for providing job under the Women and Child Development
Department and failed to provide job to the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not arguing on the
merits of the case, however arguing on the detention period of the
applicant as she is in jail since 04/01/2021 and till date trial has not
concluded. He submits that in this case there are 8 witnesses in the
charge-sheet and only four witnesses have been examined. He submits
that looking to the number of witnesses, trial is not likely to conclude at
an early date. He further submits that other co-accused in the crime have
enlarged on bail by this Court in MCRC No. 7522 of 2022 on 08/09/2022.
He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
matter of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 (para 21, 22 & 23) and submits that
maximum punishment would be awarded in the offences of seven years
out of which about one year and ten months have already gone,
therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the
detention period, the application may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the
bail application. He further submits that the applicant who happens to be
a government employee cheated so many people in Korba and
Balodabazar and huge amount of money was taken by her alluring the
complainant to provide a government job. He submits that most of the
cases the complainant/victim have been examined and they have
supported the case of the prosecution and therefore there is no change
any circumstances.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considering their rival
submissions.
7. The parameters with regard to grant of bail have been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sanjay Chandra (supra) was considering a case of 2G Spectrum
Scam and it has been held as under:-
"21.In bail applications, generally, it has been laid
down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to
secure the appearance of the accused person at his
trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is
neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty
must be considered a punishment, unless it is required
to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial
when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal
respect to the principle that punishment begins after
conviction, and that every man is deemed to be
innocent until duty tried and duly found guilty.
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.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the
object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the
fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a
substantial punitive content and it would be improper
for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of
former conduct whether the accused has been
convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an
unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a
taste of imprisonment as a lesson."
8. This Court considers that the maximum sentences provided under
Section 420 is seven years, out of about one year and ten months have
already been passed, trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this
Court inclined to allow this application. Accordingly her bail application is
allowed. It is directed that in the event of applicant executing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of
the concerned Trial Court, she shall be released on bail on the following
conditions:-
a) she shall not leave State of Chhattisgarh without prior permission of
the Court concerned.
b) she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
c) she will appear before the trial Court on each and every date unless
exempted.
d) she will not temper with evidence or influence any prosecution
witnesses.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits
of the case. Any violation of the above stated conditions would give a right to
the State to move for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
Sachin Singh Rajput
Judge
Kamde
