The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant, who apprehended arrest in a cheating case, holding that given his antecedents and the gravity of allegations, he was not a fit case for bail.
The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
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 / 4
2024:CGHC:32038
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 820 of 2024
... Applicant
versus
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, GA.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board
22/08/2024
1. Heard.
2. This is the first application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS Act, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he apprehended his arrest in connection with Crime No.113/2022 registered at Police Station
2 / 4
Raghunath Nagar, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence under Section 120-B and 420 of the IPC.
3. Prosecution case is that complainant Ramnaresh Sahu and Raj Kumar Kushwaha have lodged an FIR on 3.8.2022 at Police Station Raghunath Nagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj alleging that the accused persons have conspired to sell the land/plot(s) situated at Siltara, Raipur to the complainant and other 38 persons and in fraudulent manner, obtained a sum of Rs.56,80,320/- through NEFT transfer. Thereafter the accused persons neither given the plot nor returned the amount, and sale deed has also not been executed in favour of the affected persons and thereby they have cheated the complainant and other persons.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no named FIR against the present applicant. The complainants have mentioned the name of other co-accused namely, Anup Kumar Singh, Chandan Kumar Chaudhary and Krishna Vinayak on the ground that that they had obtained money from the complainants. He would further submit that the applicant was employed as a Trainer in the Holiday Hutzz Company on 18.12.2017 and resigned from the said post on 21.05.2021. The said fact was acknowledged by the Proprietor of the said concern namely Madhu Kohli. To demonstrate the fact that Madhu Kohli and Sandeep Pandey are the Proprietors of the said concern, a Registration Certificate was issued by the Government of India in the name of Holiday Hutzz on 13.12.2017 and 04.07.2019. He would further submit that all the cheques were issued by Anup Kumar, in the name of the said company and the applicant is neither the Director of the Holiday Hutzz nor having
3 / 4
any partnership in Geekay Developer. The applicant is in jail since 18.09.2021 with regard to the other offences and the said fact is within the knowledge of the Investigating Officer and no effort has been made to arrest the applicant for the present offence registered against the applicant. There is no substantial material available against the applicant. He would further submit that there are 6 previous criminal antecedents of the applicant and the details of which have been annexed along with the bail petition, therefore, considering all these aspects, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the aforesaid submission and submit that the present applicant is the master mind, who has executed a power of attorney, in favour of Sandeep Pandey, in whose name, the said company was registered under proprietorship later on. He would further submit that the criminal antecedents which have been filed, itself reveal that the applicant is involved in such type of activities to cheat the general public. He would further submit that in detail, about 4 offences have been registered for cheating and 2 offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act at different Police Stations. In some cases, the applicant has been acquitted, but in some cases, his bail application is still pending for consideration, therefore, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the material available against the present applicant and further considering the previous criminal antecedents, this
4 / 4
Court is of the considered view that the present is not a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Priyanka
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case to be granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS Act, 2023.
Shasha Shubham Gupta
State Of Chhattisgarh
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
