Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 12 (CHH)

Rahul Rathi v. State of Chhattisgarh

2022-01-06

PARTH PRATEEM SAHU

body2022
JUDGMENT : PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J. 1. This is first application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who is in custody since 19.09.2021 in connection with Crime No. 412 of 2021 registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.09.2021, Kusum Paikra lodged a written report stating therein that he was regular customer of P.C. Jewellers where Khushbu Soni was an employee for last may years, due to which, complainant developed relationship with Khushbu Soni. Khushbu Soni approached complainant stating there in that she will clean jewellery of complainant, took her jewellery and after some time, stated that she is opening one jewellery shop, wants to display the jewellery of complainant, she will return the same after some time. Those jewelleries were not return, but instead Khushbu Soni convinced the complainant for giving hand loan to her of Rs. 44,00,000/- to which also, complainant handed over, upon which, Khushbu Soni gave two post dated cheques to complainant, but neither amount nor ornaments were returned by her to complainant. Based on written report, FIR was registered against Khushbu Soni (co-accused) on the same day. During course of investigation, memorandum statement of Khushbu Soni was recorded, in which, she stated name of present applicant and he was arrested on 19.09.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the entire complaint or statement of complainant, there is no mention of involvement of applicant in any manner in commission of crime. There is no allegations that applicant at any point of time approached complainant along with co-accused Khushbu Soni and obtained either jewellery or cash from complainant. His name for the first time came in memorandum statement of co-accused. Only on the basis of memorandum statement, applicant cannot be held guilty of offence as alleged against him. He submits that in statement of Anil Kumar Tiwari recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. name of present applicant is mentioned. Anil Kumar Tiwari himself lodged a complaint, based upon which, Crime No. 254 of 2021 was registered before concerned Police Station, copy of which is placed on record along with objection. He submits that in statement of Anil Kumar Tiwari recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. name of present applicant is mentioned. Anil Kumar Tiwari himself lodged a complaint, based upon which, Crime No. 254 of 2021 was registered before concerned Police Station, copy of which is placed on record along with objection. Perusal of the same would show that there is no allegation against applicant in the complaint of Anil Kumar Tiwari. There is no any criminal antecedent against applicant. Offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class, which may take some time, hence, applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposing submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that in the memorandum statement of co-accused Khushbu Soni, there is specific allegation against the applicant of his involvement in commission of crime. He submits that it is the applicant who was handed over gold ornaments by co-accused for the purpose of melting, hence, there is prima-facie involvement of applicant in commission of crime. He submits that there is involvement of 453 Grams of gold as well as Rs. 44,00,000/- hence, applicant is not entitled for bail. 5. Learned counsel for objector would submit that it is the applicant who was handed over gold ornaments by co-accused Khushbu Soni and it is he who melted and therefore, complainant was deprived of his original ornaments. There is prima-facie involvement of applicant in the instant crime, hence, he is not entitled for bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, particularly, written report lodged by complainant, in which, there is mention of commission of alleged crime only by Khushbu Soni and not against applicant, though in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Anil Kumar Tiwari, name of present applicant finds place, but in complaint lodged by him, based upon which, Crime No. 254 of 2021 is registered, there is no allegation of any nature against applicant, which is also not disputed by learned counsel for objector, offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class and applicant is in jail since 19.09.2021, without commenting anything on the merits of case, I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. 8. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned on the conditions that: (a) He shall appear before the trial Court concerned regularly on each and every date unless exempted from appearance. (b) He shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. (c) If the applicant is found involved in similar offence in future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of bail. Certified copy as per rules.