Madhukar Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This 1st anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.260/2022 registered at Police Station – Dipka, District – Korba (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 IPC.

Prosecution case is that Complainant Akash Kumar Divya, son of late Kaleshwar has made a written report at PS Dipka alleging that the accused persons namely Brijlal Bhardwaj, Manharanlal Narang, Awdhesh Kumar and the present Applicant got appointment in SECL, Dipka in a forged manner. It is averred that father of the Complainant namely late Kaleshwar was having a land, which was acquired by the SECL for which, compensation was also paid as per the rehabilitation policy of the said Company and the present Applicant got appointed therein by producing forged documents, therefore, the offence as mentioned above, has been registered against him.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that as per the rehabilitation policy, the employment shall be released to actual land losers or their dependent and father of the Complainant Kaleshwar, Jageshwar and Mukesh have jointly made nomination in favour of the present Applicant showing him as the son of Kaleshwar and the said nomination was duly verified by the village Sarpanch and also duly cross verified by village Patwari and Naib Tahsildar and even in support of such nomination, the affidavit of the father of the Complainant has also been filed. He draws attention of the Court towards the agreement executed by the Complainant with the present Applicant and the Complainant has also taken money from him in the month of September, 2017 to the tune of Rs.3 lacs in which, the Complainant has categorically mentioned that the present Applicant is his relative and in the further agreement entered on 13.03.2020, it has has been categorically mentioned that the present Applicant was like a son to his uncle Jageshwar. He further submits that the Applicant entered into the job in the year 1996 and is still continuing therein, the employer has neither taken any action against him nor any departmental enquiry has been conducted to enquire such fact. He lastly submits that the Complainant is blackmailing the Applicant and also obtained money from him time to time and in connivance with the local police, also lodged FIR at a very belated stage, therefore, considering all these aspects, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, Smt Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the said prayer and submitted that the present Applicant is resident of Janjgir District and the land is situated in a different village at Korba District. She further submits that in a similarly situated offence, anticipatory bail was rejected to co-accused Manharanlal vide order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench in M.Cr.C(A) No.1584/2022. She lastly submits that the document which has been demonstrated by the Counsel for the Applicant is not a part of the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made, particularly considering that the Applicant got appointment in the year 1996 as per the SECL policy and is still continuing in the job and the Complainant is a legal heir of the land loser’s family, the FIR has been lodged at a very belated stage i.e. after more than 25 years and the local police had registered the same without making any enquiry from the Officers of the Company though the Complainant had taken money from the Applicant by executing an agreement in which, it has been categorically mentioned that the Applicant is one of his relatives and as per the rehabilitation policy of the Company, appointment can be given to the dependant of the land loser, therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicant, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

(a) at the time of furnishing of the bail bond, the concerned Court/arresting Officer shall firstly ensure and verify from the bank statement of the complainant whether the amount has already been credited in her account or not.

(b) 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.

(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

(d) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

(e) he shall not repeat the similar offence in future failing which, this order granting bail shall automatically stand cancelled without any reference to the Bench.

(f) he shall furnish all the details of movable and immovable property, bank accounts and his family members and shall not alienate the immovable property without due permission of the concerned Court below.

Learned State Counsel is directed to inform the Officers of the SECL for conducting departmental enquiry for these kind of complaints and it is also expected from the Officers of the Company to conduct a vigilance enquiry to find out whether any similar nature of forged appointments are made therein.