Krishna Vinayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The aforesaid bail applications are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of same incident. However, looking to the nature of the case, separate order is being passed in the aforesaid cases.

MCRC No. 9119 of 2022

The applicant has preferred this application for grant of bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.113/2022 registered in Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj for offence under Section 420 & 120-B of the IPC.

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.

Shri Bhaduri, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He is simply a broker of the land and he has not directly received any amount from any person and no evidence has been collected by the prosecution though charge sheet has been filed mentioning that the amount has been given unlawfully. He further submits that the applicant has not executed any agreement either with the company or with the complainant. He also submits that the Directors of the Company have also returned the cheque/s of the consideration amount in favour of the complainant, though cheques have been bounced and the applicant has been arrested on 17.9.2022. Considering all these aspects, the applicant may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel, while opposing the bail application, would submit that cheques have been issued on behalf of the company. He also submits that the present applicant is not the broker of the property but is an employee of the company who persuaded the complainant and other persons for purchasing the said plots. So, considering the huge fraud, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.

Having considered the submissions of the parties and the role attributed to the present applicant and the fact that no amount has been transferred in the account of the present applicant, as also the length of pre-trial detention, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the following conditions:-

• He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

• He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said Court.

• He 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 fact to the Court.

• He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

• The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their Adhaar Card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the Adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.

• He shall after his release, within 15 days, furnish the details of movable and immovable properties held by him and his family members viz. Wife & dependent children and shall not alienate the immovable property without the prior permission of the concerned trial Court.

MCRCA No. 1625 of 2022 & MCRC No. 10296 of 2022

Shri Pragalbh Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants namely, Anup Kumar Singh and Chandan Kumar Choudhary, prays for time to file some documents relating to bank account of the applicants showing the relevant entries, as it was alleged that the amount received by them has been transferred in favour of the company.

Office is directed to post both the matters together in the week after next.

MCRCA No. 1797 of 2022

Applicant – Neeraj Kumar Sharma has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.113/2022, registered at Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj for offence punishable under Section 420 & 120-B of the IPC.

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 present applicant along with other accused persons has 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.

12.Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant – Neeraj Kumar Sharma, would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He has not gained anything from the proceeds of the crime. He was employed as a Trainee Manager in the Holiday Hutzz Company on 29th March, 2018 and discharged his duties till 15th August, 2019. He would submit that the applicant has not obtained any money from any of the persons including the complainant neither signed any agreement and therefore the applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged act of cheating. So, the applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.

13.Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the present applicant has been named in the FIR, though copy of the FIR which has been filed along with the bail application is entirely different wherein the name of the applicant is not mentioned. However, he fairly submits that the FIR which has been annexed with the bail application appears to be obtained through web portal and also not disputed that the applicant is the employee of the said company.

14.Having considered the submissions of the parties, particularly considering the role of the present applicant and the fact that the applicant has not directly dealt with any of the persons including the complainant regarding monetary transaction or executed any agreement, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case where the applicant can be released on anticipatory bail.

15.Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with the following conditions:-

• he shall not influence the witnesses during trial.

• he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

• he 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.

• He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

• The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their Adhaar Card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the Adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.

• He shall after his release, within 15 days, furnish the details of movable and immovable properties held by him and his family members viz. Wife & dependent children and shall not alienate the immovable property without the prior permission of the concerned trial Court.