Allowed

Ashwani Dadsena v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jun 2023MCRCA/334/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 CrPC. Finding no valid written agreement and lack of evidence for financial transaction, the court held prima facie no material existed to establish the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed under Section 438 CrPC. Release on personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety upon arrest. Applicant to make himself available for interrogation and appear in court.

Ashwani Dadsena Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 334 of 2023

¶5

Ashwani Dadsena S/o Lt. Gambeer Ram Dadsena Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Angari, Police Station And District Balod (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o Amarpuri Chowk, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Amleshwar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocates.

¶11

For Non-applicant : Mr. Lalit Jangde, Dy. Government Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

22.06.2023

¶15

The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 17/2023 registered at Police Station Amleshwar District - Durg (C.G.), for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the applicant agreed to sell lands situated at village Amlidih, P.H. No. 10, Amleshwar bearing Khasara No. 353, 354, 355/1, 355/2, 357/1, 365 total area 1.150 Ha. and paid Rs. 20,000/- as advance. It is further alleged that on 17.02.2023 the applicant sold the lands to another person, thus, committed the offence.

¶17

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no written agreement between the applicant and the complainant, an oral agreement cannot be a foundation for registering the case prima facie, therefore, he is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and would submit that there was an agreement arrived at between the applicant and complainant wherein they have agreed to sell the suit property in question, as such, the applicant is involved in the offence and therefore, the FIR has rightly been registered against him.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case diary.

¶21

From the diary it is quite vivid that in the agreement dated 11.02.2023, there is no signature of the applicant and only the signature of purchaser has been taken, as such, it cannot prima facie said to be a legal agreement, and also considering that the prosecution has not collected any material to show the financial transaction has been done between the parties and the applicant has prima facie intended to cheat the complainant.

¶22

Considering the fact that no money transaction has been done between the applicant and the complainant, only on the basis of an oral agreement the complainant has purchased stamp valued at Rs. 84,800/and also considering no prima facie material has been collected by the prosecution to establish the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against the applicant, I am inclined to give benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to the applicant.

¶23

Consequently, the M.Cr.C.(A) is allowed.

¶24

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with

¶25

¶26

the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :

¶27

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned police officer as and when required;

¶28

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat undue influence to the prosecution witnesses.

¶29

(iii) 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.

¶30

Certified copy as per rules.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶33

kishore

Ashwani Dadsena v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Dadsena 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

Kalyan Singh (Died) Through Lrs. Vs (a). Smt. Sarita Mishra and Others

Smt.Sarita Mishra Vs (Deleted) Smt. Tara Devi

Ramandas Pamnani Vs Asha Balecha

Utkarsh Manke Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jhariram Salam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jhariram Salam Vs State of Chhattisgarh