Allowed

Anil Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jan 2024CRMP/1614/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Special Judge granted bail to the applicant, Anil Rai, under Section 420, 409, 120-B, 34 IPC after he was rearrested for violating prior bail conditions. The order fixed strict conditions for refund of dues in installments and automatic cancellation of bail upon default. The objector's petition to cancel bail was dismissed as resulting in no order needed.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed to be released on bail with personal bond and undertakings to pay dues in installments. CrMPs disposed of; no order necessary for respondents 2 and 3.

Anil Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 8803 of 2023

¶5

• Anil Rai S/o Raj Dayal Rai Aged About 38 Years R/o Plot No. 45/01, Umda Tola, Supreme India Chawani, Bhilai, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-Applicant

¶9

CRMP No. 1614 of 2023

¶10

• Anil Rai S/o Raj Dayal Rai Aged About 38 Years R/o, Plot No.45/1, Umda Tola, Supreme India Chawani, Bhilai, Durg District. Durg C.G. ---- Applicant

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station Amanaka, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Vijay Kumar Jha S/o Jogeshwar Jha Aged About 61 Years R/o 4802 Oberai Exquisite Mumbai-63 Goregaon East Brihan Mumbai City (Maharashtra) ---- Non-Applicant

¶14

CRMP No. 1667 of 2023

¶15

• Mr. Vijay Kumar Jha S/o Late Jogeshwar Jha, Aged About 61 Years Occupation Director, Nirav Metals Rt, Ltd., 6 Irhari Building, 274190 S.V.P. Road Mumbai (Maharashtra), R/o Flat No. 4802, Oberoi Exquisite, Tower C, Goregaon, East Mumbai (Maharashtra).

¶16

---- Applicant

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶19

Anil Rai S/o Raj Dayalo Rai Aged About 39 Years R/o Plot No. 45/01, Umda Tola Supreme India Chawani, Bhilai Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶20

¶21

Gurjeet Singh Randhawa, S/o Balwant Singh, Aged About 36 Years R/o Tatibandh, LIG 870, Behind Bharat Mata School, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Original Address - Village Jarakothi, Ps Gajroula, District Pilibhit, (U.P.)

¶22

---- Non-Applicant

¶23

For Applicant	: Shri BP Singh, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant	: Shri BP Banjare, Deputy GA and Ms. Usha
	Chandrakar, PL.
For Objector	: Shri Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate.

¶24

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

¶25

Order On Board

¶26

04/01/2024 :

¶27

The Application {MCRC No. 8803 of 2023} has been preferred by the applicant for grant of bail, whereas CRMP No. 1614 of 2023 has been preferred by the same applicant for extension of time or for modifying the earlier bail order. Both the matters are being disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the same incident.

¶28

MCRC No. 8803 of 2023

¶29

The applicant has preferred this application for grant of bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.43/2022 registered at Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur for offence under Section 420, 409, 120-B, 34 of the IPC.

¶30

This is the 2^nd bail application on behalf of the applicant. Earlier, the applicant was granted bail vide order dated 20.6.2022 passed in MCRC No.3453/2022 with certain conditions. It was also made clear that if the

¶31

applicant fails to comply with the conditions mentioned in the order

¶32

¶33

granting bail to him, the said order shall automatically stand cancelled without further reference to the Bench. As the applicant could not fulfill the conditions imposed by this Court, the bail stood automatically cancelled and he was arrested on 27.9.2023 and thus, the applicant has preferred the instant application for grant of bail.

¶34

Prosecution case is that complainant Vijay Kumar Jha, being the Director of the Nirav Metals Pvt. Ltd., has entered into an agreement with the applicant’s company namely, Orbit Electromech India Pvt. Ltd. Applicant Anil Rai is one of the Directors of the said company. As per the negotiations, applicant Anil Rai was required to supply scrap material to the complainant and his one of the channel partners namely Nilesh Damani. As the goods were not reaching the destination, the complainant enquired from the transporter co-accused Gurjeet Singh. The said Gurjeet Singh in connivance with the main accused Anil Rai sent fake messages in Whatsapp that out of 14 trucks, 5 trucks were already on the way, but after considerable time, the said trucks did not reach the destination. Therefore, the aforesaid offence has been registered. During investigation, it has been revealed that the scrap materials to the tune of Rs.8 crores (approximately) have not been supplied to the complainant and his channel partner and thereby cheated the complainant.

¶35

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. There was civil dispute concerning supply of goods and there was bonafide commercial transaction

¶36

¶37

between the complainant and the applicant and to maintain such commercial relations, the applicant along with other co-accused gave an undertaking before this Court for refund of the amount. However, due to certain unavoidable circumstances, the applicant could not arrange the money in the aforesaid period. The applicant is in jail for more than 16 months, the offences are triable by the JMFC, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and the applicant has already made the payment of Rs.90 lakhs and has also given proposal vide Annexure-A/6. Learned counsel further submits that in the proposal (Annexure-A/6), amount of installment of Rs.50 lakhs extra was mentioned whereas as per the undertaking given earlier, an amount of Rs.3,35,08,958.91/- was to be refunded to the complainant. The applicant has already refunded Rs.90 lakhs and the remaining amount of Rs.2,45,08,959/- is to be refunded as per the proposal given at Sr. No.2 to 6. Considering all these aspects, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶38

On the other hand, learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the Objector would oppose the bail application on submission that as against the present applicant, 3 other criminal cases were registered bearing Crime Nos.22/2021 & 344/2021, PS Old Bhilai, District Durg and another case was registered at Crime No.109/2021, PS MIDC, Aurangabad (Maharashtra).

¶39

Replying the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicant submits that for the cases registered in Durg district, a settlement has

¶40

¶41

been arrived at and on the basis of compromise, the applicant has already been acquitted. In another Crime No.109/2021, registered at PS MIDC, at Aurangabad (Maharashtra), the applicant has already been released on bail by the trial Court.

¶42

Learned counsel for the Objector would also submit that 2 more criminal cases have been registered against the applicant, one at PS Budhdha, District Patna bearing Crime No.217/2020 and the other Crime No.11196010200089/2020 registered at Vadodara (Gujrat).

¶43

Replying the above submissions, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the crime number registered at Patna, compromise between the parties has been arrived and in the said case, the applicant was released on bail vide order dated 15^th March, 2023 (Annexure-A/3) whereas in other crime number, he is on bail.

¶44

Though Shri Kundu, learned counsel for the Objector prays for further time to file reply, however, this Court vide order dated 15.12.2023 has already issued a direction to learned counsel for the Objector to file reply and to seek instructions for the proposal made by learned counsel for the applicant, but no reply has been filed so far. So this Court would not grant further time to file reply.

¶45

Learned counsel for the Objector further submits that though the applicant has filed the CrMP seeking modification of the bail conditions on 19.7.2023, however, simultaneously he has also moved to the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking modifications of the conditions of the bail imposed by this Court in MCRC No.3453/2022 vide order dated

¶46

¶47

20.6.2022, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11^th September,

¶48

2023 passed the following order:-

¶49

“It appears that although four months’ time for deposit of Rs.3.35 Crore or to supply the scrap material to the complainant of Crime No.109 of 2021 was stipulated by the Court on 20.6.2022, the said four months period is already over and the accused has failed to either return the scrap material or to deposit a sum of Rs.3.35 crore. Only a token sum of Rs.10 lakh was tendered, as told by the petitioner’s counsel.

¶50

In these circumstances, Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner would try to abide by the condition imposed by the learned Court. Accordingly the matter stands adjourned till 03.10.2023.”

¶51

Meanwhile, the applicant was arrested on 27.9.2023 and when the matter came before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 3.10.2023, learned counsel for the applicant did not press the said matter and the petition was dismissed as not pressed. He further submits that the applicant was not the authorized vendor of the Steel Authority of India Limited and in spite of that he entered into transaction with the complainant. The applicant had no intention to clear the dues as he has not made any effort to defreeze his personal account. Considering the conduct of the applicant, he is not entitled for bail.

¶52

Replying the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court for relaxing the bail conditions granted by this Court in MCRC No.3453/2022. Learned counsel fairly admits that the mistake was on the part of the counsel, as for the similar relief, CrMP was already

¶53

¶54

pending consideration before this Court. There was no malice or illintention on the part of the parties and if any mistake occurred, the same is on the part of the counsel.

¶55

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has made a statement before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that he would try to abide by the condition imposed by this Court and sought time, and subsequently, the said petition was not pressed.

¶56

Admittedly, this Court has enlarged the applicant on bail vide order dated 20.6.2022 passed in MCRC No.3453/2022 with certain conditions. It is also not disputed that the applicant has already paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the complainant and the Bank Draft of Rs.80 lakhs has already been deposited before the trial Court. The applicant has also made a revised proposal to clear the dues vide Annexure-A/6, for which this Court has granted time to learned counsel for the Objector on 15.12.2023 for considering the same.

¶57

Considering the nature of the transaction, this Court has allowed bail after taking into consideration the undertaking given at the time of passing the bail order, however, for one or the other reason, the said conditions could not be fulfilled by the applicant. If any undertaking has been earlier given and for the reason that money could not be arranged, in criminal trial, a person cannot be detained for an indefinite period, as the applicant has already been in incarceration for more than 15 months, he was arrested on 27.9.2023 and also made revised proposal to fulfill the conditions and to liquidate the amount in installments, considering

¶58

¶59

all these aspects, this Court is of the view that strong case is made out for grant of bail.

¶60

Accordingly, the Application {MCRC No. 8803 of 2023} is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶61

He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of

¶62

Rs.50,000/- with 2 sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶63

He shall appear before the trial Court on each

¶64

and every date given by the said Court.

¶65

After his release, the applicant shall pay the

¶66

remaining amount in installments as proposed in Annexure-A/6 at Sr. No.2 to 6 that is to say on 30^th day from his release he shall pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs; on 45^th day from his release, he shall pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs; on 60^th day from his release, he shall pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs; on 75^th day from his release he shall pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs and on 90^th day from his release, he shall pay a sum of Rs.45,08,959/-, in aggregate Rs.2,45,08,959/-.

¶67

The complainant is also entitled to receive the

¶68

demand draft for a sum of Rs.80 lakhs deposited before the trial Court, as mentioned in Annexure-A/6.

¶69

The complainant is entitled to withdraw the

¶70

amount which has been deposited subsequently.

¶71

The applicant shall also furnish all details of

¶72

movable and immovable properties in his name as well as his wife and dependent children.

¶73

The applicant shall not alienate the immovable

¶74

property without written permission of the concerned

¶75

¶76

trial Court.

¶77

• It is made clear that if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions, mentioned above, this order granting bail to the applicant shall automatically stand cancelled without further reference to the Bench.

¶78

CRMP No. 1667 of 2023

¶79

The aforesaid petition has been filed by the Objector seeking cancellation of bail granted to the applicant and other accused namely, Gurjeet Singh Randhawa in MCRC No.3121 & 3453 of 2022 on 20.6.2022. As the present applicant namely, Anil Rai has already been arrested on 27.9.2023, the present petition in respect of respondent No.2 namely Anil Rai has become infructuous. With respect to respondent No.3 – Gurjeet Singh Randhawa, this Court in its order dated 20.6.2022 has already put a condition that if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions, the order granting bail to the applicant shall automatically stand cancelled without further reference to the Bench and, therefore, no other order is required. Accordingly, the present petition with respect to respondent No.3 Gurjeet Singh Randhawa also stands disposed of.

¶80

Resultantly, both the CrMPs stand disposed of.

¶81

Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶82

Barve

Anil Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Rai 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

Ramesh Agrawal Vs Mohan Lal Agrawal And Ors.

The State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Munnilal

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajendra Shukla @ Rajjan Shukla And Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Uttam Vyapari

Cypirion Jacob Vs Vijay John

Teekaram Sahu Vs Yogeshwar @ Bhagtram Sahu and Ors.