MCRC/9474/2018 of RAMSINGH NIRMALKAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 20 December 2018

1. The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 439 ofCrPC as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.53/2018registered at Police Station Gariyabandh, District Gariyaband (CG) forcommission of offence punishable under Section 409/34 of the IPC andSection 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. CrPC as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.53/2018registered at Police Station Gariyabandh, District Gariyaband (CG) forcommission of offence punishable under Section 409/34 of the IPC andSection 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the basis of a complaintregarding misappropriation of articles in Fair Price Shop, Majarkatta,District Gariyabandh by the applicant and others, a committee consistingof two members i.e. Cooperative Development Officer & Assistant FoodOfficer, was constituted to enquire into the allegation. During the physicalverification of the stock, said Committee has found shortage of 845.3quintal of rice, 3.94 quintal of sugar, 7.01 quintal of salt, 7.75 quintal ofgram & 1467 liters of kerosene oil. Total value of the shortage wasassessed as Rs.3,40,726/-.regarding misappropriation of articles in Fair Price Shop, Majarkatta,District Gariyabandh by the applicant and others, a committee consistingof two members i.e. Cooperative Development Officer & Assistant FoodOfficer, was constituted to enquire into the allegation. During the physicalverification of the stock, said Committee has found shortage of 845.3quintal of rice, 3.94 quintal of sugar, 7.01 quintal of salt, 7.75 quintal ofgram & 1467 liters of kerosene oil. Total value of the shortage wasassessed as Rs.3,40,726/-.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and theManager of Cooperative Society, Majarkatta used to maintain the stock,Manager of Cooperative Society, Majarkatta used to maintain the stock, however, due to some bonafide mistake the stock could not be maintainedproperly. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 18.7.2018and the trial is likely to take time. Allegation against present applicant issimilar to that of co-accused, who has been released on bail by the trialCourt. Therefore, the applicant may also be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bailapplication. application.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegationlevelled against the applicant, the fact that co-accused has already beengranted bail and that the applicant is in custody since 18.7.2018 anddisposal of trial is likely to take time as the case is triable by Magistrate 1[st]Class, I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. levelled against the applicant, the fact that co-accused has already beengranted bail and that the applicant is in custody since 18.7.2018 anddisposal of trial is likely to take time as the case is triable by Magistrate 1[st]Class, I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that theapplicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in thesum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of theconcerned trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and whendirected. applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in thesum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of theconcerned trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and whendirected.

7. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)Vacation Judge