Allowed

Uday Krishna Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC25 Nov 2024MCRC/7568/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS by an applicant arrested for cheating and deposit-related offences connected to an investment scheme. Court noted absence of charge-sheet documents showing his directorship/proprietorship and allowed bail on bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety, subject to specified conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

Uday Krishna Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:46423

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 7568 of 2024

¶6

Uday Krishna Ratre S/o Late Bhuwan Lal Ratre, Aged About 40 Years R/o Bal Mukund School, Bhartiya Nagar, Police Station- Civil Line, DistrictBilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police StationCivil Line, District-Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Baldau Prasad Banjare, Advocate For Respondent- : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Panel Lawyer State

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD

¶13

26/11/2024

¶14

Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 268/2024 registered at Police Station – Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of IPC, Section 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005.

¶15

Case of prosecution in brief is that one Narendra Kumar Dubey lodged a complaint to the concerned police station alleging that he was informed by one Tirithram Banjare that he use to get investment done in Sai Krishna Investment managed by Vinay Krishna Ratre in which 5% per month return is PAWAN KUMAR JHA being paid. Upon which he met with Vinay Krishna Ratre and discussed with Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶16

2 / 4

¶17

respect to scheme and investment and the return and further that upon making higher investment gift and tour packages is also being provided. Coming into the influence of the scheme, he made investment initially sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- and thereafter some of Rs. 49,00,000/- in part through online transfer. Thereafter, without his consent, one agreement was prepared and he was paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is also stated that similarly sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- were obtained from Khuleshwar Sahu and 12,00,000/- from Shekhar Sahu. The amount has not been paid and thereafter he was cheated. Based on the complaint, F.I.R. was registered and during course of investigation, other offences under Section 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 was also added. Case was initially registered against Vinay Krishna Ratre, charge-sheet was filed on 16.06.2024 and thereafter applicant was also interrogated and he was arrested on 24.08.2024 and supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 07.10.2024.

¶18

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant in no manner is related to the Sai Krishna Investment, it is managed by Vinay Krishna Ratre. He contended that though investigating agency has submitted its charge-sheet initially on 16.06.2024 and subsequently on 07.10.2024, however, police has not made documents of the company as part of the charge-sheet to show that the applicant is also in any manner related with the company and therefore provisions under Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 or Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 would be attracted against him. It is further contention of learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has been made accused based on the allegation that the applicant has accepted the amount for investment from Narayan Prasad Nayak, Narendra Rajak, Urvashi Choubey, Madhuri Lata Mahilange and Rajid Khan, however, there statements under Section 161 of CrPC have not been recorded. He contended that in the

¶19

3 / 4

¶20

agreement which is made part of the charge-sheet of Rajid Khan, there is no mention that he has handed over the money for investment in Sai Krishna Investment, it is mentioned that he has handed over the money for investment in making film as applicant is also a Director and Producer of the Chhattisgarhi Film. Applicant has also got the film prepared and it was uploaded on website namely ‘Kurukshetra’. Applicant is also engaged in business of property dealing and the amount which is paid by the Madhuri Lata is for purchase of the land. Applicant is having power of attorney of Chandramani Balram, original land owners, and the land owned by Chandramani Balram is sold in favour of Madhuri Lata vide registered sale deed dated 15.02.2021. Applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime only because he is real brother of Vinay Krishna Ratre who has transferred a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- in his account from his own account. Applicant is in jail since 28.04.2024, trial may take some time, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and further submits that after filing of the charge-sheet, police during further investigation has seized agreements from possession of applicant and based upon which he was also made accused. Police seized five agreements from his possession. However, upon asking with respect to agreement of Rajid Khan, he read-over the contents of agreement which would show that the amount handed over by the Rajid Khan is not for the purpose of making investment in the Sai Krishna Investment. He also contended that different amount has been accepted and deposited by the applicant in Angel Broking Private Limited. When question is posed to learned State counsel with respect to Director and Proprietor of two companies ie., Sai Krishna Investment and Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd., he submits that documents in this regard are not available in the charge-sheet.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

4 / 4

¶24

Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, in particular the submission of learned counsel for the parties based on the contents of agreement of Rajid Khan, in the charge-sheet there is no document to show the Director or the Proprietor of the company of Sai Krishna Investment and the Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd. as also that the chargesheet has been filed, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application for grant of bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that-

¶26

(a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶27

(b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In case of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶28

(c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶29

(d) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶30

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶33

pwn

Uday Krishna Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Krishna Ratre 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

State of Chhattisgarh, Vs Anil Kumar Tiwari

Mukesh Mishra @ Harishchandra Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ishwari Jaiswal Vs Naveen Kumar Jaiswal

Purshottam Vs Mohanlal

Dhan Bai Soni Vs Union of India

National Highways Authority of India Vs Dhan Bai Soni