Mohd. Imran Qadri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010298532026

2026:CGHC:41010

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 7404 of 2026

¶7

1 - Mohd. Imran Qadri S/o Mohd. Iqbal Qadri Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 4, Behind Holy Cross School, Pension Bara, Police Line Raipur (C.G.) 492001 ... Applicant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali , District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Thakur Nischhay Singh, Adv., along with Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, with Ms. Nikita Sikarwar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Dr. Saurabh Pande, Dy. A.G.

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

21.09.2026

¶14

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 292/2026, registered at Police Station (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS.

¶15

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the applicant induced the complainant, namely, Devendra Kumar Verma, and some other

¶16

Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.09.22 11:45:49 +0530

¶17

2

¶18

persons by assuring them of providing jobs in Mahatma Gandhi University of Horticulture and Forestry, Sankara Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, and thereby obtained a huge sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in cash. On such complaint, Crime No.292/2026 for commission of the offences, as stated above, was registered against him.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the FIR was lodged by the complainant/Devendra Kumar Verma, alleging that the present applicant had grabbed Rs.4,00,000/- from him. He would further submit that during the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of various witnesses and the amounts allegedly collected from those witnesses were included in the FIR. He would further submit that the actual amount collected from the complainant/Devendra Kumar Verma is Rs.4,00,000/- and the alleged amount of Rs.21,00,000/- collected from various other persons cannot be taken into consideration in a single FIR. It is further argued that the present applicant never received any amount in his bank account and the allegation is regarding cash transactions without any documentary proof. He would further submit that in the present case, the investigation has already been completed, the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 07.07.2026. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that with regard to three criminal antecedents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has held that criminal antecedents of an accused cannot be considered as the sole ground for denial of bail. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶21

3

¶22

the matter of Abhimanue Etc. Vs. State of Kerala , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2037.

¶23

5. On the other hand, Dr. Saurabh Pande, learned Dy. A.G., would submit that the present applicant grabbed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from various persons, including the complainant, on the pretext of providing jobs in the said university. He would further submit that there are criminal antecedents against the present applicant of similar nature. He would further submit that considering the manner in which the offence was committed and the amount involved, he, therefore, prays for rejection of the bail application.

¶24

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶25

7. It is true that there are three criminal antecedents against the present applicant. Out of them, one criminal case registered for commission of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC has already been disposed of, whereas two cases are still pending consideration. The applicant has explained his criminal antecedents in paragraph 4A of the main application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Abhimanue (supra), has categorically held that the criminal antecedents of an applicant, by themselves, cannot constitute a ground for denial of bail. Paragraph 23 is relevant and is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶26

Our attention was also invited to the status report filed by the State, to indicate the various criminal antecedents of the appellants. Suffice it to say, however, that such antecedents by themselves cannot constitute a ground for denial of bail. In this context, a useful reference may be made to the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan of which one of us

¶27

4

¶28

(Augustine George Masih, J.) was a member. The relevant paragraph therefrom is extracted below:

¶29

The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents............

¶30

8. In the present case, there is an allegation of cash transactions. It is also admitted that the FIR was lodged by the complainant, Devendra Kumar Verma, who has made an allegation that the present applicant grabbed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from him for providing a job in the said university. The FIR includes the amount allegedly collected from other aggrieved persons, though they did not file any FIR or report before the police authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of The State (NCT )of Delhi Vs. Khimji Bhai Jadeja, reported in AIR 2026 SC 507, held that each individual deposit agreement had to be treated as a separate and individual transaction brought about by the allurement of the financial companies. The relevant paragraph 18 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶31

We must also refer to Narinderjit Singh Sahni and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0644/2001 2001:INSC:503: (2002) 2 SCC 210, a decision that weighed heavily with the High Court in answering the reference. Therein, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court dealt with a case involving 250 FIRS registered throughout the country. The argument before this Court was that they constituted a single offence or, or,

¶32

5

¶33

in the alternative, an offence which could only have been committed in the course of the same transaction. Dealing with this argument, the Bench observed that the fact situation did not permit any credence being given to the submission that the FIRs pertained to a single offence. It was held that each individual deposit agreement had to be treated as a separate and individual transaction brought about by the allurement of the financial companies, since the parties were different, the amount of deposit was different as also the period for which the deposit was made. The Bench, therefore, observed that all the characteristics of independent transactions were there and it did not see any compelling reason to hold otherwise. However, we may note, with all due respect, that there was no in-depth analysis of statutory provisions or case law in the context of commission of offences in the course of the same transaction, whereby persons Accused of multiple offences committed in the course of that same transaction could be charged and tried together. In any event, the development of law on the point, referred to hereinabove, including later decisions of 3-Judge Benches, is indicative of the legal position prevailing as on date. The above referred judgments sum up the legal position adequately and we see no purpose in burdening this decision with more case law on the point.

¶34

9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 07.07.2026, and without commenting upon the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶35

10. Let the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶36

(i) 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

¶37

6

¶38

in accordance with law.

¶39

(ii) 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.

¶40

(iii) 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.

¶41

(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 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.

¶42

Jyoti

Mohd. Imran Qadri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Imran Qadri 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases