Allowed

Suresh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Mar 2023MCRCA/210/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. where the applicant, facing charges under Sections 409, 420 and 120B IPC in a business transaction, produced a settlement agreement dated 29.12.2022 executed after the FIR was registered.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. allowed; the applicant is directed to execute a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety and abide by specified conditions.

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C.(A) No. 210 of 2023

¶5

Suresh Kumar S/o. Late Lakhan Sao Aged About 50 Years R/o. Zero Mile Farhari, Patna, Bihar Kotwali Bihar.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For the Applicant : Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Shri Lalit Jangde, P.L.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey ORDER

¶12

01.03.2023

¶13

This is the first bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 498 of 2022, registered at Police Station – Mohan Nagar, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 read with Section 34 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

As per prosecution story, Orbit Lactromek India Private Limited has raised invoice to the tune of Rs.65,48,005/- after delivery of material to Srishti Ispat. On 16.1.2020, the complainant received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.45,48,005/- is not paid by the present applicant, therefore, a complaint was made and consequently, FIR was registered against the present applicant.

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is business transaction between the present applicant and the complainant. FIR was registered on 21.12.2022 and thereafter, the matter was settled between the parties and an agreement was also entered vide Ex. A/4 on 29.12.2022 and thus, he would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that he is not aware of any subsequent development taken place between the parties, however, he would further submit that the transaction between the parties is business transaction and to recover the amount of about Rs.40,00,000/-, FIR has been lodged.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection.

¶19

From the FIR, which was registered on 21.12.2022, it appears that for recovery of Rs.40,00,000/- a complaint was made. It is not in dispute that there is business transaction between the parties. Compromised agreement dated 29.12.2022 has been filed by the applicant, according to which, the parties have settled their dispute.

¶20

Considering the above discussed matter, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.PC. is allowed . It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on

¶22

¶23

bail by the Officer arresting him on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. He shall also abide by the following conditions:

¶24

'(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

The observations made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of the applicant on the application for grant of anticipatory bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by the observations made in the course of this order.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶31

Nimmi

Suresh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar 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

Syed Ahfaz Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pitamber Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Garima Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandram Nirala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Krishna Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh