Allowed

Mrs. Vinita Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jun 2023MCRCA/92/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Applicants faced charges of cheating for failing to execute a sale deed after receiving payments. The Court granted bail noting that the Applicants had returned the money and a settlement agreement was executed, which was not disputed by the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety, subject to specific conditions regarding interrogation, witness conduct, and court appearances.

Mrs. Vinita Agrawal Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 92 of 2023

¶5

Mrs. Vinita Agrawal W/o Shri Vikas Agrawal, Aged About 49 Years R/o Wallfort City, Bhatagaon, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

Vikas Agrawal S/o Shri Satanand Agrawal, Aged About 52 Years R/o Wallfort City, Bhatagaon, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

---- Applicants.

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Purani Basti Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Applicants : Mr.Prafull Bharat, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Akash Pandey, Advocate. For State/ Respondent : Ms. Pushpallata Xalxo, PL For complainant : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board

¶13

15/06/2023

¶14

This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 0002 of 2023, registered at Police Station– Purani Basti, Raipur, CG for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Dr. Dhshyant Chouhan lodged a written report that the applicants entered into an agreement for sale of their Flat No.1004 (10^th Floor, 3 BHK flat) situated in Wallfort City Bhatgaon, Raipur for sale consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- ( One crore) and it was agreed that the sale would be made in the name of the complainant. In pursuance of the said agreement, the applicants received Rs.14,51,000/- from 27-9-2022 to 11-10-2022, despite

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

the said payment, applicants have not made the sale deed in favour of the complainant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants have already returned the amount of Rs.14,51,000/to the complainant and agreement to this effect has also been executed between the parties, but unfortunately it could not be signed, therefore, he prays that this applicant should be granted anticipatory bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has not opposed the aforesaid submission and would submit that the amount of Rs.14,51,000/- has already been received by the complainant and in this regard agreement was duly signed by the complainant.

¶20

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

¶21

Considering the material on record and the fact that the applicants have already returned the amount of Rs.14,51,000/to the complainant and in this regard an agreement was also executed between the parties which is not disputed by the complainant, I am inclined to extend the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to the applicants.

¶22

Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed and It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid offence, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail by the officer arresting on each of them 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 Applicants shall also abide by the following conditions:-

¶23

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

¶24

(ii) That the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat undue influence to the prosecution witnesses;

¶25

Page 3 of 3

¶26

(iii) 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.

¶27

Certified copy as per rules.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶30

Raju

Mrs. Vinita Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Vinita Agrawal 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

Rohit Singhania and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.usha Golechha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Akhilesh Rajwade Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ghanshyam Choudhari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Puran Lal Thakur Vs S Prakash (Ias)

Rakesh Kumar Sao Vs State of Chhattisgarh