RAM NAGINA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

(2.) The petitioner herein lodged First Information Report No.145/2019 before Police Station Chirmiri against respondents No.7 to 9 alleging that they have taken Rs. 3,50,000/- for getting employment for his son which they have failed to provide and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC which was ultimately registered by the said police station. Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by respondents No.8 and 9, both being the sons of respondent No.7, was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 1-5-2019, whereas their father respondent No.7 was extended the privilege of regular bail by order dated 16-5-2019. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Code for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.7 before the Court of Session which was ultimately transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) presided over by respondent No.6 herein and ultimately, the application for cancellation of bail was rejected by order dated 5-8-2019 (Annexure P-1). Likewise, respondents No.8 and 9 after rejection of their application, filed application under Section 167(2) of the Code claiming the privilege of default bail which was rejected by the learned Magistrate, but ultimately, in the revision preferred by respondents No.8 and 9, the Court presided over by respondent No.6 herein granted bail to them under Section 167(2) of the Code finding that charge-sheet could not be preferred within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the instant writ petition has been filed claiming setting aside of order dated 5-8-2019, whereby the application under Section 439(2) of the Code filed by the petitioner herein for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.7 was rejected. Further challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 6-8-2019 by which respondents No.8 and 9 were granted bail invoking Section 167(2) of the Code. Other ancillary reliefs of CBI enquiry, action against respondent No.6 and other reliefs have been sought apart from the relief that some observations against the petitioner be expunged.

(3.) Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the application under Section 439(2) of the Code filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.7 ought to have been allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as after grant of bail, respondents No.8 and 9 have threatened the petitioner for the reason of lodging report against them. Similarly, default bail could not have been granted to respondents No.8 and 9 as it is contrary to the facts and law available on record and as such, action against respondent No.6 in enlarging them on bail be also directed and the observations made against the petitioner in the order granting bail be also expunged / set aside.