High CourtsSingle Bench

Manish Nigam vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 25 July 2018 · Citation: (2018) 07 CHH CK 0291

HON’BLE JUDGES
Goutam Bhaduri, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 406, 420 · Prize Chits And Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 — Section 3, 4, 5
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 3125 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 345 words

Goutam Bhaduri, J

1.

This is the First Bail Application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 21.07.2016 in connection with Crime No. 285/2016 registered at Police Station P.S. - Janjgir, District - Janjgir - Champa (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978.

2.

As per the prosecution case, the present applicant who was working as a Director of Renatuss Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Chhattisgarh, allured different people to deposit the money in the company with an assurance that the money would be doubled within a short span of time with a high degree of interest and the same was not returned back and all of a sudden the company was closed after collection of the money and the said circulation of money was made without any sanction of the RBI or SEBI. Thereby the offence has been committed.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the report was made only on the basis of the presumption before the maturity date. He further submits that only on presumption the report was made and the company has already entered into compromise with few of the depositors and only few depositors are remained and the applicant is in jail since 21.07.2016, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

4.

Learned State counsel was directed to file the reply, but still the same was not filed at the time of hearing.

5.

Perused the rejection order, which records that out of the witnesses, 8 witnesses have entered into the compromise, whereas the other victims still remain. Considering the same and the way the offence has been committed, whereby the money of the grass root level people have been siphoned in the organized way and the compromise has not been effected with all the victims, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

6.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.