VIRENDRA BAHIDAR Vs. STATE OF C G
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
State Of C G
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) HEARD .
This application has been preferred by the applicant under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. for bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 61/2001
registered at Police Station Gharghoda, for the offences punishable under
Sections 409, 471, 420 and 109 of the IPC.
The case of the prosecution is that the applicant was the salesman at
the relevant time in Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Gharghoda between 30/
04/1998 to 06/03/1999 when he was entrusted with the material valued at Rs. 2,72,850/- for the purpose of sale. However he misappropriated stocks
worth Rs. 1,21,999/- in the meanwhile which was pointed out in the audit
report and on the basis of the said audit report FIR was lodged on 30-5-2001
as also against Ram Dhan, Manager of the Society at the relevant time and
after investigation charge sheet was filed on 25-12-2003 showing the present
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence available in the charge sheet to show that the stocks in question were entrusted
to him for sale and in the absence of entrustment the offence as aforesaid
could not be registered against the present applicant. He further submits that
he was a salesman who was performing his duties as per directions of the
Manager and he continued to perform his duties up to 05-04-2005 on the
date when he surrendered of his own before the trial Court and at no point of
time he was absconding as alleged. He further submits that the Manager of
the Society has already been enlarged on bail against whom also similar
allegations are there in the charge sheet.
On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application and submits that the charge against present applicant is of
misappropriation whereas the charge against the Manager is of only dereliction
of the duty in the matters of supervision. He further submits that the applicant
was absconding for a long period and therefore he could not be extended the
facility of bail however he admits that there is no Farari Panchnama available
in the diary to show that the applicant was absconding.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and
further considering that the Manager of the Society has already been enlarged
on bail I consider present to be a fit case where the applicant should be
extended the facility of bail. Accordingly the application is allowed and it is
directed that in the event of applicant namely, Virendra Bahidar executing a
bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction
of the trial Court, he shall be released on bail.
Parties are entitled for certified copy of the order.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.