High CourtsSingle Bench

Lokesh Hirwani (Sahu) vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 7 February 2019 · Citation: (2019) 02 CHH CK 0092

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sharad Kumar Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 201, 420
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 519 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

19 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.