High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 02 CHH CK 0092

Lokesh Hirwani (Sahu) vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 7 February 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sharad Kumar Gupta, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 519 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 329 words

Sharad Kumar Gupta, J

1.

This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant before this Court and his no bail application is pending before any other court.

2.

The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1066/2018 registered in police station Durg Kotwali, Distt. Durg (CG) for offence punishable under Section 420 and 201, IPC.

3.

Perused the case diary.

4.

Prosecution story in brief is that in the year 2015-16 complainant Smt. Purnima Sahu and the applicant entered into an agreement for construction of a house on the land of the said complainant. Construction was to be done by the applicant. The applicant obtained pass book, Rin Pustika from the complainant. He also obtained from her blank cheque, blank stamp papers. The constructed house along with land was sold by the registered sale deed by the complainant to one Anurag Shrivastava. The buyer Anurag Shrivastava had given a cheque of Rs. 24 lacs to the complainant. The complainant had given the cheque to the applicant for depositing the same in her account. The applicant deposited the said cheque in her account, subsequently he transferred the said amount from her account to his bank account.

5.

Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. He further argued that he is in hail since 6-12-2018. There is civil dispute between him and the complainant. The applicant had also given an application to S.P., Durg against the complainant and some other persons. All documents are in favour of the applicant. The complainant's case is not supported by documents. Hence he may be released on bail.

6.

On the other hand, the State Counsel opposed the bail application.

7.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the huge amount of Rs. 24 lacs involved in the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

8.

Consequently, the MCRC is dismissed.