P. Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Rao @ ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 267 Chatt

                                  1

                                                                  NAFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       MCRC No. 9519 of 2022

    P. Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Rao @ Rajput S/o Shri P. Bhushan
     Rao Aged About 32 Years R/o Shrinagar, Shivanand Nagar,
     Behind Ganesh Temple, Khamtarai, Police Station Khamtarai
     Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                            ---- Applicant

                               Versus

    State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station: Telibandha,
     District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                          ---- Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.

For State : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board

13.01.2023

1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under

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

with Crime No. 173/2020 registered at Police Station: Telibandha,

District: Raipur C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections

120-B, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

2. As per the prosecution case, a report was lodged by the Manager

of the Punjab National Bank, Shyam Nagar Branch, alleging

therein that the applicant along with other co-accused persons

have taken a loan of Rs. 42,50,000/- by producing forged

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

aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant and

other co-accused persons.

3. 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 32 years old, he is in jail since

24.06.2020, 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 persons namely T. Gopi has

been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide Order dated 14.06.2021

passed in MCRCA No. 1720 of 2020, co-accused Divya Joshi

has been enlarged on bail vide Order dated 26.06.2020 passed

in MCRC No. 3613 of 2020. Other co-accused persons namely T.

Ravi, Sumit Joshi, Tulsidas Sakhre, Manoj Vaishnav and D.

Prabhakar have been enlarged on bail by the order passed by

the lower Court, therefore, the present applicant be also released

on bail on the ground of parity.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail

application.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

of allegation against the present applicant, the fact that applicant

is in jail since 24.06.2020, in particular the pre-trial detention of

the applicant, who is 32 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 persons

namely T. Gopi has already been granted anticipatory bail by this

Court vide order dated 14.06.2021 passed in MCRCA No. 1720

of 2020 and another co-accused namely Divya Joshi has been

enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 26.06.2020 passed in

MCRC No. 3613 of 2020 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.25,000/-

with one solvent surety 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 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/-

(Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

Saurabh