Shubham Jain vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, J

The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.532/2024, registered at Police Station Telibandha, District-Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (In short, IPC).

As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant Vikas Singh Thakur filed a written complaint, which upon investigation, found that accused Basant Jain, Shubham Jain, and Sageer Khan conspired to cheat Vikas. They promised a solar light installation contract in villages, demanding Rs.35 lakhs (Rs.24 lakhs + Rs.11 lakhs). Accused provided fake documents and work orders, receiving Rs.21 lakhs (Rs.7 lakhs cash + Rs.14 lakhs via bank). However, they failed to deliver the contract or refund the money, committing fraud. Thereafter, the offence has been registered against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely been implicated in the present case. She further submits that the FIR was lodged on 12.08.2024 and the investigating police had no clue of the accused persons and on the basis of mere suspicion the applicant has been implicated in the present case. She also submits that the allegation against the applicant pertains to the receipt of Rs.14,00,000/- which the applicant categorically denies, the applicant has not received any amount and there is no credible evidence to support such allegation, the complainant has no interest or connection in the alleged offence, the complainant has suffered no loss due to the alleged actions of the applicant. Moreover, the complainant has no legitimate association with Firm, on whose behalf the complaint has been filed, indicating that the complaint is frivolous and not grounded in any genuine grievance, further the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Hence he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant alongwith co-accused persons have fraudulently taken money to the tune of Rs.21,00,000/- from the complainant for establishment of solar energy. He further submits that the anticipatory bail application of one of the co-accused, namely, Sageer Khan has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024 in MCRCA No.1042 of 2024, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

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

Taking into consideration the nature of allegation made against the present applicant that he alongwith other co-accused persons have fraudulently taken money to the tune of Rs.21,00,000/- from the complainant for establishment of solar energy, also considering the fact that the anticipatory bail application of one of the co-accused, namely, Sageer Khan has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024 in MCRCA No.1042 of 2024, as such, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Shubham Jain, involved in Crime No.532/2024, registered at Police Station Telibandha, District-Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34 of IPC is rejected.