HI6 HCOURT^OFCHHATTI56 ARH: BILASPUR S v. RESPON&ENT STATE OF CHHATriSS'ARH E^^^,:?£^S-3i^S ^S.^fi-St-'^^'- ~-^''S?S^ PRESENT; Shri Oharmesh Shrivastava, counsel

HI6HCOURT^OFCHHATTI56ARH: BILASPUR S,B,HON'H,I5HRIVIJAy,KU,ttAR_SHRiyASTAYA_,_J CRIAAINAL MISC PETCTTON 187 OF 2006 PETITEONER Vs RESPON&ENT STATE OF CHHATriSS'ARH E^^^,:?£^S-3i^S ^S.^fi-St-'^^'- ~-^''S?S^ PRESENT; Shri Oharmesh Shrivastava, counsel for ths petitioner. >hri Vinay Harit, Additional Public Prosecutsr for ths State. (Passed on 1CT Mar-ch 2007) This petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fFor short " the d'.P.C.} has been directed against tl'ie order dated 18.10.2006 passed by Additionai Sessions Judge, Sakti in Crimina! Revision No.15/2006. lB»18fts. Sis:^5^1as ^^•KSS 2) Briefly stated facts are that, petitionsr was prosecuted for committing offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of the IPC. After framing of charge, learned trial Court fixed the case for recording of evidence on 18.07.2006, but, after completion of 60 days, neither recordiriq of evidence is started nor conciuded.

Therefore, an appiication inyoking pr-ovision of Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. was rnade bsfore the trial Court. Addjtional Chief Judiciai Maqistrate, £<ikti (trial Court) deciined to release the petitioner on bail. Faaling aggrieved, petitioner preferred a revision before Additional Session Judge, Sak*i, who also v'ide impugned order refused to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, ttie instant petition. 9p 3) Undisputedly, a cheque bearing No.002610 dated 14Tn October 2004 was issued by ICC Bank, Ludhiana for Rs.1,620/- in favou" of the petitioner. It is alleged that by manipulation the amount was converted as Rs.61,620/- and thereafter the said cheque was tendered for coilection in the State Bank of India, Jaijaipur. On verlfication, it wns b'^^:^^1?^:^—^-/-.^.-'•Jv^- '•-^ found that the cheque has been issued for Rs.1,620/-, therefor-z, r,o sayment vvas made to the petitioner. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner contendsd that the petitioner is not the au1+ior of- .Tionipulation.

The cheqsje receiv-ed by the petitioner Vi;as tenderad for coilection. He is innocent. He is under custody for the last nine months. The tria! is A'i,agesterial triai. In near future, also the case is not going to be concluded and decided. He is not protonging the trial, for delay prosecution clone is responsible. On the othe" hand, learned counsel for the State supported the ^lltt^l^l^^ impugned order. 5) Undisputedly petitioner is not responsible for the dg'ay of the trial. Tria! is Magesterial trial and will take time for its disposa'. 6) Having considered ali the facts and circumstances of the case wlthout expressing any opinion on the allegations ieveled against the petitioner, is directed thst on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty'-five thousand only) with two sureties of the like sum abiding with following other conditions, to the satisfaction the concerned Court for his regular appearonce before ths concemed courts as and when so directed, he be rsleased on bail • ^•2>) I) 2) 3) He shal! ,iot comrnst any siiniiar offence of which hs is cccused.

He shal! 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 disclosinq such facts to the Court. He sha!I not ieaye the State of C.hhattisga'h without previous permission of the Court. In view of the above order Cr.M.P.187/2006 stands disposed of. ertified copy as per rules. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge BSBfefitteSs .^:c;mci •*^-