Harish Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:16359

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 2751 of 2025

¶6

1 - Harish Sharma S/o Ashok Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 96, Aawas Colony, Kalapepal Mandi Thana Kalapepal, District Shajapur, (Mp) (In Jail)

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)

¶10

... Non-Applicant

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶12

ORDER ON BOARD

¶13

08/04/2025

¶14

Learned counsel for the Respondent/State submits that the case diary is available.

¶15

With the consent of parties, case is heard finally.

¶16

SHUBHAM DEY

¶17

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 79/2016 registered at Police Station – Surajpur, District – Surajpur, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chit Fund and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005.

¶18

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶19

2

¶20

Case of prosecution is that, the present applicant being former 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 accpted under vaious recurring/fixed deposit schemes, also in some cases under the bond scheme. The said companies were not authorized by Security Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to conduct such business, therefore, the offence has been committed under Sections 402, 120B, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 and under Sections 420, 409, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chit Fund and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the crime. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He submits that the applicant is one of the Directors, but he is not involved in deceiving the investors, nor he has directly taken any amount from any persons. It is further submitted that although 11 cases have been registered against the applicant in the State of Chhattisgarh in which, charge-sheet has been filed. As per order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in WPCR No. 40 of 2022, all 11 cases have been clubbed in the principal case which is pending as Criminal Case No. 2 of 2020 (FIR No. 146/2017) before the Court of Surajpur. He would further submit that in some of the cases (Crime No. 42/2016, registered at Police Station – DD Nagar, Raipur), the present applicant has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 28.06.2022 in MCRC No. 3380 of 2022, copy of the said order dated 28.06.2022 is annexed as Annexure A/4 in the present bail application.

¶22

3

¶23

He further submits that the applicant has also been granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in another similar case by order dated 25.07.2022, a copy of the order dated 25.07.2022 is annexed as Annexure A/5 in the bail application. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that identically situated co-accused, namely, Abhishek Singh Chauhan has also been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.10.2023, copy of the order dated 04.10.2023 is not annexed in the present bail application. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 04.12.2019. Though chargesheet has been filed, however, till date the charges have not been framed. Thus, conclusion of trial is likely to take quite long time and therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

¶24

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the counsel for the applicant and would submit that the applicant being Director of the aforesaid company have cheated the poor investors and thereby, collected huge amount from them. It is further submitted that in the State of Chhattisgarh, 11 cases have been registered against the applicant. All the cases have been clubbed in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 13.07.2022 with principal FIR/Criminal Case pending in the Court of Surajpur. Therefore, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant does not deserves to be released on bail.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶26

Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, particularly, taking into consideration the detention period of the applicant and also considering the fact that despite filing of charge-sheet, till date charges have not been framed and also considering the fact that some of the cases (Crime No. 42/2016, registered at Police Station – DD Nagar,

¶27

4

¶28

Raipur), the present applicant has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 28.06.2022 in MCRC No. 3380 of 2022 and the applicant has also been granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in another similar case by order dated 25.07.2022 and the identically situated co-accused, namely, Abhishek Singh Chauhan has also been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2023, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application for grant of bail.

¶29

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of Trial Court concerned on the conditions that:

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

(c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial andin order to secure her 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. (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.

¶33

5

¶34

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

¶35

copy as per rules.

¶36

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶37

Dey

Harish Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ghana Bai Yadav Vs Executive Director

Smt. Sarita Verma Vs Satish Kumar Chandrakar

Kunwar Das Jangde Vs Santosh Kumar Kaiwartya

Santosh Kumar Chouhan Vs Natwar Sharma

Urmila Vs Akbar Ali

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Bihanu