Allowed

Shailendra Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 May 2022MCRC/1732/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed three bail applications jointly. It held that although the gravity of the offence is high, the period of pre-trial detention is seven months, the charge-sheet is filed, and further custodial interrogation is not required.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each with one local solvent surety in an equal amount.

Shailendra Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

Page 1 of 5

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 550 of 2022

¶5

Nikhil Kumar Kosle, S/o Narendra Kumar Kosle, aged about 24 years, R/o Amlidih, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

		----Non-applicant
For Applicant	:	Mr. Maneesh Sharma & Mr. Pragalbha
		Sharma, Advocates
For Non-applicant/State	:	Mr. Sunil Otwani, Addl. AG

¶10

WITH

¶11

MCRC No. 2170 of 2022

¶12

Jagmohan Sipka, S/o Shri Amrit Sipka (wrongly mentioned as Amrita in order sheet), aged about 24 years, R/o Trimurti Nagar, Fafadih, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

---- Applicant

¶14

Versus

¶15

State of Chhattisghar, through Station House Officer, Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶16

	----Non-applicant
For Applicant	: Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State	: Mr. Sunil Otwani, Addl. AG

¶17

WITH

¶18

MCRC No. 1732 of 2022

¶19

Shailendra Mishra, aged about 43 years, S/o- Lt. Vijayshankar, R/o TikraparaSidharth Chowk, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

---- Applicant

Versus

Page 2 of 5

State of Chhattisghar, through Station House Officer, Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶24

---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Addl. AG

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶26

10.05 .2022

¶27

Regard being had to the similitude of the questions and crime number involved and on the joint request of the parties, these matters are analogously heard and are decided by this common order.

¶28

These first bail applications have been filed on behalf of the applicants under Sections 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 464 of 2021, registered at Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur (CG) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 120-B & 420 of IPC.

¶29

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a Company, in the name and style of Helping Forever, run by its three Directors, namely, Nikhil Kumar Kosle, Shailendra Mishra (applicants herein) and one another co-accused person, namely, Shiv Sahu, was involved in providing loans and credit cards to the persons who are having requirement. It is the further case of the prosecution that a credit card was made available to the complainant, namely, Mohan Rao upto the limit of Rs.3,00,000/- and, thereafter, only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was disbursed to the said complainant and remaining amount i.e. Rs.75,000/- has been taken as commission by the said company for getting issued the credit card and Rs.25,000/- was taken in the name of processing fee and further Rs.1,00,000/- was taken for the purpose of investment by the said company and the amount, as promised, has not been

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

paid by the company to the complainant, therefore, the said complainant, namely, Mohan Rao lodged complaint at Police Station Telibandha, leading to registration of instant FIR against the three Directors of the said company and two employees/executive of the Axis Bank, namely, Jagmohan Sipka (applicant herein) and Navi Khan. Thereafter, all the accused persons were arrested by the police on 09/10.10.2021 and thereby committed the offence.

¶32

Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicantShailendra Mishra submits that the applicant has not committed any offence. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated. At the time of providing credit card facility, the complainant was made clear that Rs.75,000/- will be charged as commission and Rs.25,000/- will be taken as processing fee and further Rs.1,00,000/- will be taken for the purpose of investment, for which interest will not have to be paid by him and remaining Rs.1,00,000/- will be deposited in his account. Agreeing upon such conditions, the complainant was provided the facility of credit card. Further, the applicant-Shailendra Mishra is in jail for past more than seven months and charge-sheet has been filed and trial would take time to be concluded and, therefore, the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶33

Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicantNikhil Kumar Kosle submits that on the basis of express understanding between the parties, credit card facility has been provided to the complainant and he further adopts the submissions made above by learned senior counsel.

¶34

Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicantJagmohan Sipka submits that the applicant is innocent employee of Axis Bank and he has been falsely implicated. He was only doing processing work in Bank. He is also in custody for past more than seven months and, therefore, he be also released on bail.

¶35

Page 4 of 5

¶36

Per-contra , learned State counsel appearing for the respondent-State opposed the bail applications and submits that the aforesaid Company, namely, Helping Forever has deliberately and intentionally played fraud and provided credit card to the complainant upto the limit of Rs.3,00,000/- with the help of two employees of the Axis Bank and only Rs.1,00,000/- has been disbursed to the complainant and remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been embezzled by the applicants/accused persons. Further, the aforesaid accused persons have provided aforesaid credit card facility to other persons also, whose statements under Section 161 of CrPC have been recorded before the police and embezzled huge amount of money, thus, the present applications deserve to be rejected.

¶37

After hearing learned counsels for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature and gravity of offence and going through the material available on record including the case diary and specially taking into consideration that at present only one complaint, i.e. present FIR being No.464 of 2021 has been registered at the instance of the present complainant, namely, Mohan Rao for providing credit card facility upto the limit of Rs.3,00,000/- to him and out of which Rs.1,00,000/- has only been given to him and remaining Rs.2,00,000/- is said to have been embezzled by the three Directors of the Company and two employees of the Bank and the period of pre-trial detention, i.e., seven months, and charge-sheet has been filed in this case and trial would take prolonged period of time to be concluded and the offences are trial by Magistrate and no further custodial interrogation is required for the applicants herein, I am inclined to allow these applications and enlarge the applicants on bail.

¶38

Accordingly, applicants namely, Nikhil Kumar Kosle, Jagmohan Sipka

¶39

Page 5 of 5

¶40

and Shailendra Mishra are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with one local solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for their appearance before the concerned trial Court as and when directed.

¶41

Consequently, all bail applications are allowed .

¶42

Certified copy as per rules.

¶43

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶44

s@if

Shailendra Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Mishra 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

Bhuneshwar Devangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jaga Gandgi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Panchram Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nikhil Kumar Kosle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Karan @ Kiran Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kareem Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh