High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 09 CHH CK 0044

Manish Solanke vs State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Supela

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 6 September 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Goutam Bhaduri, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 5080 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

18 paragraphs · 307 words

Goutam Bhaduri, J

1.

Heard.

2.

This is the Third Bail Application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been

arrested on 17.04.2017 in connection with Crime No.106/2017 registered at Police Station Supela Bhilai, District Durg (CG) for the offence punishable

under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B, 34 IPC.

3.

The First Bail Application bearing M.Cr.C. No.5536 of 2017 was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.10.2017 and the Second Bail Application bearing

M.Cr.C. No.865 of 2019 was also dismissed as withdrawn on 25.02.2019.

4.

As per the prosecution case, a report was made by Goukaran Tandan that Sukhchand on behalf of Sahyog Bachat Avm Sakh Saharkari Samiti on

the allurement to give high return of amount collected different amount and the applicant Manish Solanke was one of the directors of the Samiti.

Thereafter, neither the money was returned nor any plot was given to them. Consequently, the offence has been committed.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 17.04.2017, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

6.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that from 71 persons the money was taken which was more than

1crore rupees and only with two complainants Prakash and Goukaran the compromise has been effected to dilute the case, whereas the victims are

more in number.

7.

Considering the way the offence has been committed and it seems that the applicant appears to be cleverly entered into the compromise only with

the persons who lodged the FIR. Therefore, taking into the facts and background of the case and also the way the offence is committed, I am not

inclined to release the applicant on bail.

8.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.