MCRC/9699/2018 of PRAMOD KUMAR VAISHNAV @ AIDU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 20 December 2018

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure for grant of bail to the applicant who has beenarrested in connection with Crime No. 828/2018 registered at PoliceOutpost Rampur, Kotwali Korba, Civil and Revenue District Korba(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 392 and 34 of theIndian Penal Code.Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the applicant who has beenarrested in connection with Crime No. 828/2018 registered at PoliceOutpost Rampur, Kotwali Korba, Civil and Revenue District Korba(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 392 and 34 of theIndian Penal Code.

2. As per the prosecution case, allegation against the present applicant isthat on 27.10.2018 at about 8.30 pm, when the complainant Ashfaq Alireached near wine shop, at that relevant time, applicant along with co-accused Tripurari Sahu asked money for purchase of liquor andthereafter, they have snatched one mobile phone and Rs.5000/- fromthe pocket of the complainant. The complainant lodged written report onthe next day i.e. 28.10.2018.that on 27.10.2018 at about 8.30 pm, when the complainant Ashfaq Alireached near wine shop, at that relevant time, applicant along with co-accused Tripurari Sahu asked money for purchase of liquor andthereafter, they have snatched one mobile phone and Rs.5000/- fromthe pocket of the complainant. The complainant lodged written report onthe next day i.e. 28.10.2018.

Yogesh

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has notcommitted any offence and no offence as alleged against him has takenplace. He further submits that near wine shop, some altercation anddispute arose between the applicant and the complainant, on the basisof which, false complaint has been lodged against the applicant. Hefurther submits that in the FIR, no details of the mobile or cash havebeen mentioned which itself shows that the applicant has been falselyimplicated, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. committed any offence and no offence as alleged against him has takenplace. He further submits that near wine shop, some altercation anddispute arose between the applicant and the complainant, on the basisof which, false complaint has been lodged against the applicant. Hefurther submits that in the FIR, no details of the mobile or cash havebeen mentioned which itself shows that the applicant has been falselyimplicated, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bailand submits that there was recovery of Rs.500/- from the possession ofthe applicant.and submits that there was recovery of Rs.500/- from the possession ofthe applicant.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused thecase diary.case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature ofallegation levelled against the applicant as well as the period ofdetention of the applicant i.e. since 29.10.2018, I am inclined to releasethe applicant on bail.allegation levelled against the applicant as well as the period ofdetention of the applicant i.e. since 29.10.2018, I am inclined to releasethe applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. isallowed. allowed.

8. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on hisfurnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety inthe like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for hisappearance as and when directed. furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety inthe like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for hisappearance as and when directed.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Vacation Judge