High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 08 CHH CK 0004

Umashankar Sing vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 10 August 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Misc.Criminal Case (Anticipatory Bail) MCRCA No.2138 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

24 paragraphs · 433 words

@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT

1.

The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 438 of CrPC, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.395/2019,

registered at Police Station Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 & 120-B read with Section

34 of IPC.

2.

The Municipal Council, Kanker issued advertisement for allotment of shops in the year 2004. One Ramniwas Agrawal and one Smt. Rishi Kumari

moved separate application for allotment of shops. Smt. Rishi Kumari had applied for allotment of shop under Handicapped Category. When Rishi

Kumari failed to submit proof of her being handicapped, both shops bearing No.A-19 and C-49 were alloted to Ramniwas Agrawal. The allotment

was made prior to the applicant's holding charge as CMO, however, some notesheet was approved by him while he was holding charge of CMO for

two days. Subsequently, Rishi Kumari preferred Civil Suit No.5-A/2011 before the Additional District Judge (FTC), Noth Bastar, Kanker, which was

partly allowed on 21.12.2015 setting aside the allotment of shops in favour of Ramniwas Agrawal and at the same time directing the Municipal Council

to refund the premium amount of Rs.3,26,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as also to direct refund of Rs.73,500/- along with interest @ 6%

per annum from Ramniwas Agrawal.

3.

The present FIR has been registered on 01.11.2019 on the complaint made by one Saurabh Tiwari, the then CMO, Municipal Council, Kanker.

4.

Learned State counsel would oppose the prayer for grant of bail.

5.

Considering that the applicant has already been allowed interim protection; incident is of the year 2004 and the applicant's holding charge of Office

of CMO is only for 2 days; he is a government servant and his arrest shall adversely affect his services, this Court is inclined to extend benefit of

anticipatory bail to the applicant.

6.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on

his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the following

conditions:-

(i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(ii) 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer.

(iii) he shall not influence the witnesses during pendency of the trial.