Manoj Kumar Uboveja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 93 of 2024

¶5

Manoj Kumar Uboveja Son Of Shri Puranlal Uboveja Aged About 61 Years Resident Of Ward No. 09, State Bank Colony, Taigore Nagar, Near Sai Mandir, Raipur, C.G.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- ChirmiriBharatpur, C.G.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶11

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board

¶12

03/04/2024

¶13

Applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.230 of 2020 registered at Police Station- Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120-B, 34 of IPC.

¶14

Case of the prosecution in brief, is that, complainant lodged a written report on 04.07.2020 stating therein that complainant entered into an oral contract with Paynet Broadband Services Private Limited (Party No.2) for supply of 25000 set-up box. Each set-up box having the value of Rs.1,560/-. Contract was oral.

¶15

-2-

¶16

Based on the order of contract, he deposited Rs.1 Lac vide cheque No.0039/18 with Party No.2. thereafter, as stated by other coaccused Manoj Ubweja and Santosh Pandey, he has deposited the amount with Party No.2 and other Company i.e. Vande Matram Cable Network Company (Party No.3). He has deposited total amount of Rs.3,86,31,000/- with Party No.2 and Party No.3. Party No.2 supplied 12,000 set-up box having its value of Rs.1,87,20,000/-, but have not supplied rest of 13,000 set-up box as agreed even when amount of Rs.1,99,11,000/- is deposited with Party No.2 and Party No.3. When complainant asked them to supply the balance set-up box, they gave evasive reply. He has also contacted with the officials of the Company at Delhi but they also gave evasive reply to complainant. Complainant was cheated by applicant and other co-accused persons, neither supplied the remaining set-up box nor refunded Rs.1,99,11,000/- to the complainant. Based on the complaint, First Information Report was registered on 06.07.2020 for the aforementioned offences against the applicant and other six co-accused persons.

¶17

Learned counsel for applicant would submit that one Jaipal Singh Gulati entered into oral contract with complainant for supply of 25,000 set top box of cable television and have made part payment, out of which 12,000 set top boxes were supplied and the remaining set top boxes were not supplied to the complainant. Applicant along with one Santosh were looking to the business of Jaipal within the territory of Chhattisgarh and therefore they have been made party. There is no direct dealing of complainant with the applicant nor any amount has been deposited in his account and

¶18

-3-

¶19

therefore no offence as alleged would be made out against him. He submits that the FIR registered against the co-accused Santosh has been quashed and main accused Jaipal with whom complainant entered into contract and deposited certain amount has been granted benefit of anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.09.2021 passed in MCRCA No.1089 of 2021.

¶20

Learned counsel for State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. However, he do not dispute submission of learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegation the contract for supply of set top box was with Jaipal and the amount is also deposited with Jaipal and he has been released on anticipatory bail.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation and further considering that Jaipal with whom complainant entered into contract for supply of set-top box and deposited the amount has already been granted anticipatory bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶23

Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in question, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer. Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :-

¶24

-4-

¶25

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶26

(ii) the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶27

Certified copy as per rules.

¶28

Sd/----/-/-/-/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶29

Praveen

Manoj Kumar Uboveja v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Uboveja v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Singh Vs Director of Enforcement

Sunil Kumar Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prabhat Vishwas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitish Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudarshan Das Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh