Hearing two bail applications under Section 439 CrPC inCheating and Cheque Dishonour cases, the High Court rejected both granting bail due to strong prosecution evidence and high pendency of similar cases against the applicant.
Applications under Section 439 CrPC in Crime No.334/2018 and Crime No.135/2012 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
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1525 of 2019
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Respondent
MCRC No. 1528 of 2019
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Respondent
| For Applicant | : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For State/respondent | : Mr. Avinash Kumar. Mishra, Panel Lawyer. |
| For Objector | : Mr. Rahim Ubwani, Advocate. |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order On Board
2
15/07/2019
2. These bail applications are the first bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with:-
(I) Crime No.334/2018 in MCRC No.1525/2019 registered at Police Station-Azad Chouck, District – Raipur(C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Crime No.135/2012 in MCRC No.1528/2019 registered at Police Station-Saraswati Nagar, District – Raipur(C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3
dishonored by the bank and there are cases pending under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short 'the Act') against this applicant and the complainant, therefore, to make an escape from this liability false FIR has been lodged against this applicant. On the basis of the arbitration clause present in the agreement, arbitration proceedings has been initiated between both the parties which is pending consideration. Further, a matter is also pending before NCLT. The complainant has deliberately made the applicant an scapegoat to find a rescue from the liabilities. Hence, no case is made out against this applicant in Crime No.334/2018. The other case registered against the applicant is clearly a matter of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and FIR has been erroneously registered under Section 420 of IPC. Hence, it is prayed that applicant be granted regular bail in both the cases.
4
the agreement. As the applicant deliberately failed to fulfill his obligation, therefore, various cases have been filed against the applicant under Section 138 of the Act in which complainant has also been made a party only for the reason that he is one of the Directors of the company. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail.
5
particularly for the reason that there are about 40 cases pending against the applicant, although most of the cases are under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, I do not feel incline to allow applications in both the cases.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge
Nisha
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 439 CrPC accused in cases of cheating and cheque dishonour with high pendency.
Whether the prosecution case of cheating and non-fulfillment of contractual obligations warrants rejection of bail application.
Whether the applicant's failure to transfer properties as per agreement supports a finding of cheating depriving him of bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mahendra Kumar Gupta
Mahendra Gupta
State of Chhattisgarh
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
