Order on Board

05 /08/2022 This 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. 107/2022 registered in Police Station Magarlod, District - Dhamtari(C.G.). for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of the IPC.

1. Prosecution story in brief is that on FIR was lodged against the applicant and co-accused stating that in Village Sargi, Tehsil- Magarlod sand mining lease was granted to co-accused Jitendra Kumar Mandal from 18/05/2020 to 17/05/2022 and for transportation temporary contract was given by Licensing Authority, District Dhamtari. It is alleged that the applicant and co-accused persons prepared the false royalty papers for 10 transport vehicle and put the office seal of Licensing Authority of Mining Branch, District- Dhamtari, on the paper and therefore, they caused loss to the government.

2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an employee in Jitendra Kumar Mandal whose name in the lease of said mining is given. The allegation is that the applicant alongwith other co- accused have printed forged royality pass and there by caused loss to the Government. He further submits that since he is an employee, he has no authority to get it printed, even otherwise, he is not gained anything which is requirement of Section 415 of the IPC to attract the provisions of cheating. At the most an offence u/s. 465 of the IPC is made out against the present applicant which is punishable for a maximium period of 2 years and it is a bailable offence. Since he is low paid employee, even otherwise, notice u/s 41(A) of the CrPC has not been issued to the present applicant and compliance of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 has not been relied with and the offence is triable by Magistrate and the applicant is ready and willing to comply with all the conditions imposed on him. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

3. On the other hand State Counsel submits that the investigation is going on and involvement of the accused, prima facie is there on the basis of the evidence so far collected, the custodial interrogation may be necessary. Therefore, he may not be relased on bail..

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

5. Having regard fact and circumstances, considering the fact that overt act, material evidence collected sofar by the prosecution and also the applicant is ready and willing to comply with the condition imposed on him by this court. I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer, with the following terms and conditions:

(i)that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned investigating officer as and when required;

(ii)that the applicant 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii)that the applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv)that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

6. It is made clear that the observations made here-in-above are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial court will decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made here-in-above. If any one of the above conditions is violated by applicant, the State will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of the bail granted to him.