Lakhan Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail has been filed by the accused/applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.42/2016 registered at Police Station Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur (CG) for the offence under Sections 420, 409 & 34 of the IPC; Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978; and Section 10 of the CG Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005.

¶16

2

¶17

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant being formal Director of Nirmal Infra Home Corporation Ltd. has accepted deposits from various customers and thereafter did not return the amount as promised, whereas the deposits were accepted under various recurring/fixed deposit schemes, also in some cases under the bond scheme. Thereafter, a complaint was made by Kishore Kumar Verma alleging that his father after retirement invested the money in the said company to tune of Rs.3,72,800/-, however, even after the maturity period the amount was not returned. During investigation it was also revealed that the said Company was not authorized by SEBI and RBI to conduct such businesses. Hence, the offence as above has been registered against the applicant and other accused persons.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been roped in a false case. He further submits that allegation made by the prosecution is baseless. He also submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.02.2020 and the trial is likely to take considerable time in final disposal. He further submits that the present applicant in the principal FIR No.146/2017 of the similar nature has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 in MCRC No.8659/2023. He also draws attention towards the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13.07.2022 in WP (Criminal) No.40/2022 wherein it has been observed that if the accused has been granted bail in connection with the principal FIR or criminal arising therefrom, in which the other FIRs/criminal cases will stand clubbed/merged in terms of the said order, the bail so granted must

¶19

3

¶20

ensure in his favour until the court of competent jurisdiction cancels the same owing to supervening circumstances including breach of bail conditions.

¶21

In view of such submission, counsel for the applicant submits that since the applicant has already been granted bail in the principal FIR, therefore, looking to the said fact and period of pretrial detention of the applicant, he may be released on bail.

¶22

Per contra, learned State counsel does not oppose the aforesaid facts.

¶23

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that applicant has been granted bail for similar nature of offence in the principal FIR by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and further keeping in view the period of pretrial detention of the applicant, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶25

“(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the defect 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.

¶26

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶27

4

¶28

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶29

(iv) 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 313 Cr.P.C. 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

Sd/-

¶31

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶32

Ajay

Lakhan Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Soni 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

Geeta Bai Vs Nutan Lal

Janakram Vs Nutan Lal

Vrindavan Vs Shyam Kumar

Akash Saxena Vs Tejuram

Gopinath Vs Smt. Anshu Devi Agrawal (Dead ) Through Legal Heirs-

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh