Allowed

Rahul Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jan 2023MCRCA/1170/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to Rahul Sharma and Vinit Rawani in respect of anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 CrPC regarding an offence under Section 406 IPC. The Court opined it was a fit case considering the civil dispute nature and evidence quality.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond and surety conditions.

Rahul Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 1170 of 2022

¶5

Rahul Sharma S/o Shrinivas Sharma Aged About 47 Years R/o 490/B, Cross Street No. 25, Near SBI ATM, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur Rural Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mention As Gandhinagar In Order).

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

MCRCA No. 1219 of 2022

¶11

Vinit Rawani S/o Shri Vijay Singh Rawani Aged About 47 Years R/o Near Kishan Rice Mill, Namnakala. P.S. Gandhinagar, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Applicant

¶13

Versus

¶14

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: P.S. Ambikapur Rural, Ambikapur, Distt.Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned As Gandhinagar In Order Sheet).

¶15

---- Respondent

¶16

For Applicants	:	Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Adv. in MCRCA No. 1170/2022 & Mr. Mohit Kumar, Adv. in MCRCA No. 1219/2022.
For Respondent/State	:	Mr. Sushil Sahu, P.L.
For Objector	:	None.

¶17

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

17/01/2023

¶20

As both the MCRCAs arise out of same crime number, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

¶21

These applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed by the applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 213/2022 registered at Police Station- Ambikapur Rural, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) for commission of the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC.

¶22

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant lodged the written

¶23

¶24

report stating that he was constructing Resort Marriage House and for that he came in contact with the contractor applicant Rahul Sharma for the supply of materials and interior construction. The contractor Rahul Sharma said he is an experienced contractor and has contact with good suppliers and sellers for other required materials and he will personally supervise sanitary work, hardware ply and other materials for the purpose of construction. The accused/applicant Rahul Sharma has received Rs. 20,25,075/- through RTGS and NIFT and in the account of Aasan Das & sons and Shankar Glass tune of Rs. 28,33,068/- is transferred on 01.12.2021, 20.2.2021 and 10.01.2022 saying that the goods would be transferred after the amount is received. But the goods are not supplied after the transfer of money also. It is further alleged that the applicant Vinit Rawani is the director of the firm Aasan Das & Sons and Shankar glass. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicants.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the present applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They further submit that the present case is a civil dispute. The entire confusion has taken place because Sandeep Sarkar who used to be the applicant’s friend as he misled the complainant and convinced them that the work has been done at a higher cost. They also submit that on 28.03.2022 when the applicant visited Ambikapur he was forced to sign on stamp paper mentioning therein that the applicant (Rahul Sharma) had taken Rs. 44,00,000/- extra in the said work and they wanted the applicant to return the same. Learned counsel for the applicant-Vinit Rawani submits that there is nothing on record to implicate the applicant, in this case, he has been falsely implicated in this case because the applicant was the employee of the complainant and he had demanded his salary thereafter false report has been lodged against him. They also submit that the applicants are ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions and directions which may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the present applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶26

¶27

On the other hand, counsel for the State however opposes the applications for anticipatory bail.

¶28

After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular nature of case and quality of the evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/ investigating officer or the Court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions:

¶29

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the concerned investigating officer as and when required;

¶30

(ii) that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶31

(iii) that the applicants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶32

(iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶33

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶34

H.L. Sahu

Rahul Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Sharma 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

Harshdeep Ware Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudhir Gajwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shashikant Jogi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Sharma Vs Mr. Naresh Kumar Verma

Sangita Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh