Single judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected a bail application from a bank employee accused of aiding online gambling via forged accounts, noting insufficient distinction from the co-accused case for relief.
Bail application of the applicant Manish Samaddar is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3773 OF 20 24
Manish Samaddar S/o Late Gopal Samaddar Aged About 32 Years R/o. J.M.Q-113, Ward No. 14, Bishrampur, District-Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
… Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
… Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Rahul Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Shri UKS Chandel, Dy. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board
20.06.2024
1. This is first bail application seeking for grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 23.04.2024 in connection with Crime No.440/2024 registered at Police Station Supela, Distt. Durg for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 IPC and Section 21(A)(B) of The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement And Regulation of Trade And Commerce, Production, Supply & Distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter called as “COTPA Act”).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13-04-2024, on being informers’ information, the VIP Cafe, Supela, Bhilai, was searched on the suspicion that the illegal activities under the COTPA Act was going on. On search, it was found that the coaccused Pranshu Gupta was serving tobacco product to the
-2-
customers in violation of COTPA Act without having required license and 2 Hukka Pot and 8 packets of flavoure tobacco, and other small parts of Hukka apparatus were seized. On the memorandum statement of Pranshu Gupta, 10 sim card of VI company and 04 bank cheque book of IDFC Bank were also seized which were in the names of Shri Ram, Sourabh Suman, Pradeep Kumar and Praveen Tirki. When Pranshu Gupta again interrogated, he disclosed that his elder brother Rishabh Gupta, who was earlier arrested at Haryana, for the offence of on-line Gambling, is required forged bank account and SIM card for transaction of the amount of gambling and he brought the SIM card and bank cheque books, and he is having more SIM card and cheque books with him. When Rishabh Gupta was interrogated, he disclosed that in the year 2022, total 50 SIM card of Vodafone, Airtel company were given to him by Rikhi Parekh, who is the resident of Jalebi Chowk, Bhilai, after obtaining it from the shop of one Ashok, situated at Himalaya Complex, Akash Ganga, Supela, Bhilai, and on the basis of said SIM card he and Arun, who was the employee of IDFC bank Ambikapur, have opened the forged bank account for transaction of the money of on-line gambling. He and Arun kept the ATM card and cheque book of the account holder with him and the amount received through the said bank account, were shared by him, Rikhi Parekh and Arun. On the basis of memorandum of Rishabh Gupta,
-3-
various SIM card and cheque books were seized. During the course of investigation, when the information of the bank account and its transaction of various persons were obtained and statements of the bank account holders were recorded, it is found that the bank employees Satyanshu and Manish Samaddar were also involved in the said act and the account holders are not aware of their bank account and its transaction even the mobile numbers and address are not of the actual account holder. When Manish Samaddar was interrogated, and on his memorandum, 2 mobile phones, bank cheque books of IDFC bank, ATM cards and a car has been seized. When Rishabh Gupta and Manish Samaddar were again interrogated, they disclosed the involvement of Sourabh Jain and Satyanshu @ Arun (bank employee) in the offence in question. Sourabh Jain and Rishabh Gupta, had given Rs. one Lakh to Manish Samaddar and Satyanshu for opening of the account in the bank and they have opened about 100 bank account in the name of various persons on the instructions of Sourabh Jain and Rishabh. When Sourabh Jain @ Babu was interrogated, he disclosed in his memorandum that he obtained the SIM card from Rikhi Parekh and with the collusion of Manish, Satyanshu @ Arun and Rishabh had gone to village Lamgaon and Pratappur and have opened the bank account in IDFC bank in the names of villagers and mobile phone
-4-
is seized from Sourabh Jain. The applicant Manish Samaddar has been arrested on 23-04-2024.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Except for the memorandum statement of the applicant and other accused persons, there is no evidence in the case diary against the present applicant to connect him with the alleged offence. He is working as Liability Relationship Officer (LRO) with the IDFC Bank and in the course of his employment, he opened the bank account of the beneficiaries after completion of formalities for opening of the bank account and he in any manner not interested in the transaction of the same. His name is appeared in the memorandum statements of the other co-accused persons and the witnesses have not named him in their statement. The offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class. The applicant is in jail since 26-04-2024, charge sheet has been filed and final adjudication of the case will take its own time. The co-accused Pranshu Gupta is granted bail by the learned trial court. Therefore, the applicant may also be released on bail.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the state opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that there is sufficient evidence in the case diary against the present applicant that he also involved in the alleged offence. From the statement of Mahesh Minj, Ashish Minj, Pradeep
-5-
Kumar, Sourabh Suman have named the present applicant that he is the person who came alongwith the other accused persons and opened the bank account, the other witnesses in whose name the bank account was opened they have also stated about the bank employee who opened their bank account, the transaction from the bank account of the co-accused in the bank account of the present applicant and there is no satisfactory explanation about the said transaction, the involvement of the applicant in the offence is prima facie appears. In the nature of offence and the manner in which the accused persons have acted in their part of the offence, he would also submits that the case of the co-accused Pranshu Gupta is different than the case of the present applicant as he has been arrested under the COTPA Act and therefore, he has been granted bail by the learned trial court, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also considering the manner in which the applicant and other co-accused persons have organized the commission of the offence, the involvement of the applicant as per the material available in the case diary, the statements of the witnesses Mahesh Minj, Ashish Minj, Pradeep Kumar and other witnesses available in the case diary in which they made
-6-
statement against the applicant as also in view of the transaction in the bank account of the present applicant and other coaccused persons for which there is no explanation, the manner in which bank accounts of number of the villagers were opened after alluring them to receive the benefits of government scheme with the collusion of bank employees for transaction of the amount of the on-line gambling, transaction to the bank account of the present applicant from the bank account of co-accused Sourabh Jain, and also that the case of the co-accused Pranshu Gupta is different then the case of the present applicant, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant Manish Samaddar is rejected.
Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge
inder
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving online gambling and forged banking transactions.
Whether the distinction in bail grant to a co-accused entitles the applicant to similar relief.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manish Samaddar
State of Chhattisgarh
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
