Purshottam Das Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, J

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.246/2024 registered at Police Station- Basantpur, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 34 of IPC.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the complainant Pankaj Padhariya appeared before the police station and lodged a FIR with effect that the present applicants operate an establishment in the name of Kabir Capital Investment and Kabir finance group in shop No 417 on the fourth floor of Raipur magneto mall and cheated the persons by luring them to give loans and make them deposit money but they do not provide any loan amount. When applicant No 1 met complainant in rajnandgaon he told him that he works in finance and if any need of loan required he should tell him, then complainant told him that 2 crore loan is needed for the development of business. On this applicant No 1 assured and promised to give loan and told him that some expenses will be incurred for taking the loan. He agreed to this and from 25/10/2021 till date total of Rs. 39,22,150/- has been given in the name of loan. Out of which 2,45,000/- were returned to him at present 30, 77,150/- is still pending. Therefore, the aforesaid offence was registered against the applicants

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present matter. The allegations leveled by the complainant Pankaj Pandriya are baseless and false. There is no clear evidence to the substantiate the allegations leveled against the applicants. The applicants have not cheated the complainant in any way and the allegations leveled in the case are completely false and fabricated. She further submits that the name mentioned in the FIR and the name of the person arrested by police is different. Babita Manikpuri name is not mentioned in the FIR while Lalita Manikpuri's Name is mentioned in the FIR. The applicant No 3 has been arrested on the basis of mistaken identity which proves that the action taken by the prosecution is flawed. She further submits that the co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Session Court, Rajnandgaon and they are in jail since 24.09.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and and submits that the applicants/accused for allegedly cheating Pankaj Padhariya of approximately ₹40 lakhs by promising to arrange a loan of Rs.2 crores. The applicants/accused allegedly provided false assurances and tempted the complainant, resulting in a large-scale fraud of approximately ₹36 lakhs and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and there is one criminal antecedent of the applicant No. 1 and there is no criminal antecedent of rest others. Hence, they are not entitled for grant of bail.

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

Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and nature of dispute and material available in case diary and also considering the fact that the co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court, Rajnandgaon and further there is a delay of two years and seven months in lodging the FIR and there is one criminal antecedent of the applicant No. 1, which is disposed of and rest others have no antecedent, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court find it appropriate to grant bail to the present applicants.

Let the applicants– Purshottam Das Manikpuri, Tika Shanker Sidar and Babita Manikpuri involved in Crime No. 246/2024 registered at Police Station- Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 34 of IPC, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

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

(iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberated 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 them in accordance with law.

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