Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Nov 2018MCRC/6899/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the applicant, accused of cheating and forgery involving a company that allegedly failed to refund investor deposits, argued him being a false scapegoat. The High Court refused bail due to the huge amount involved, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; applicant ordered to remain in custody.

Rajesh Kumar Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Company and Corporate | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 6899 of 2018

¶5

Rajesh Kumar Rai S/o Lalji Rai Aged About 50 Years Permanent R/o Village Khaura, House No. 152, Post Baurova, Saidpur, District Gajipur Uttar Pradesh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For applicant Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Adv. with Mr. Janmejay, Adv For Respondent/State Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Govt. Adv.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board

¶12

16-11-2018

¶13

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.

¶14

The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 213/2015 registered in police station Supela, Distt. Durg (CG) for offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of the IPC.

¶15

Prosecution story in brief is that the applicant and co-accused started a permanent office of the company namely Vaibhav Pariwar India Project Limited. The applicant is Director of the said company. Applicant and other six co-accused allured the people to invest money in the said company which would be doubled in short time. Ninety eight persons deposited Rs. 67,41,000/- in the said company. The company issued bonds to the depositors. On due date, said company did not pay the amount to the depositors.

¶16

Counsel for the applicant argued that complainant Prakash Paliwal had mis-appropriated the amount for which the company is not liable. The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated

¶17

¶18

hence he may be released on bail.

¶19

On the other hand, the State Counsel opposed the bail application.

¶20

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the huge amount involved in the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

¶21

Consequently, the MCRC is dismissed.

¶22

Sd/(Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge

¶23

pathak

Rajesh Kumar Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mundi @ Jilla Mundi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Resham Lal Satnami Vs State of C.G.

Gopi Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Singar Vs State of M.P.

Dipak Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhaneshwari @ Meena Vs State of Chhattisgarh