High Court of Chhattisgarh decided two first bail applications filed under Section 439 CrPC concerning charges of cheating and forgery. The court rejected bail citing pending investigation and evidence of fraud against the applicants.
Applications for regular bail in both M.Cr.C. Nos. 1080 and 1087 are rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on : 01/07/2019
Order Delivered on : 18/07/2019
M.Cr.C. No. 1080 of 2019
Arif Ahmed Qureshi S/o Late Shri Mumtaz Ahmed Qureshi Aged About 47 Years R/o Noorani Chowk Rajatalab, P. S. Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
And
M.Cr.C. No. 1087 Of 2019
---- Applicants
Vs
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Pandri Police, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
| For the Applicants |
: Shri Kishore Bhaduri with Shri Pawan |
|---|---|
| Kesharwani, Shri Kshitij Sharma and Shri Pragalba Sharma, Advocates. |
|
| For the Respondent/State | : Shri Vikram Dixit, G.A. |
| For the Objector |
: Shri Adil Minhaj, Advocate. |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant CAV ORDER
Heard.
2
applicants filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.23 of 2019, registered at Police Station Pandri, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3
Mohammad Idris was healthy and capable of taking decisions all the time.
It is further submitted that after lodging of FIR on 17.1.2019 Mohammad Idris has been influenced by complainant – Ayesha Siddiqui because of which, he had given a repeat statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. which cannot be taken into consideration, therefore, no case is made out against these applicants. Hence, it is prayed that the applicants in both the cases be benefited with grant of regular bail.
4
defrauded him successfully for the reason that Mohammad Idris placed toomuch faith on them. The bank account statement of Mohammad Idris is very clearly disclosed that not a single penny was paid to Mohammad Idris for the transactions that were made. The sale deed itself is manipulated in which at the time of execution of sale the details of payment were not mentioned which were added later on. This shows the collaboration of public officers as well in the said commission of offence of cheating. Revenue records and the Registry documents have also been forged. The applicants are influential persons who are capable of interfering in the investigation. Therefore, the case needs detailed investigation hence, for the purposes of the same, the application be rejected.
6. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.
5
Afatab Siddiqui and Vindhyavasini Developers at a price of Rs.30 crores by committing the offences of forgery etc. It is alleged that the said 30 crores was withdrawn from the account of Mohammad Idris by the authorized person applicant No.1 - Afatab Siddiqui in M.Cr.C. No. 1087 of 2019 and some amount has been paid back in account of Mohammad Idris to show that the payment of consideration has been made. It is stated that Mohammad Idris was in clutches of Afatab Siddiqui and Arif Ahmed Qureshi who have taken benefit of the short memory of Mohammad Idris.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge
Nimmi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether regular bail can be granted to the applicants charged with forgery and cheating pending investigation.
Whether the evidence regarding manipulation of bank accounts and sale deeds warrants denial of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Arif Ahmed Qureshi
Afatab Siddiqui
Abdul Gani
State Of Chhattisgarh
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
