Ved Prakash Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Applicants have preferred this application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail as they apprehend their arrest in connection with

Crime No. 502/2013 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B

& 34 of IPC.

As per the case of prosecution, written report was lodged by one Nayaran Vaishnav on 10.05.2013 mentioning therein that Vedprakash Verma was

his classmate and friend. At the time of discussion of employment, Vedprakash has asked him to meet Dhananjay Burman in his office. When the

complainant went in the office of Dhananjay he asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 20,000/- and has assured that he would provide him Government

job. Complainant deposited Rs. 20,000/- in his office. Thereafter, in the month of December 2011, Dhananjay Burman asked the complainant to

further deposit Rs. 1,80,000/- as it is required to be given to the Government officials which the complainant had also deposited with Dhananjay

Burman. Dhananjay handed over him one appointment letter dated 03.05.2012 and when the complainant went to join the place of posting, he was

informed that the letter was forged. Upon getting knowledge that complainant was cheated, he lodged a written report, based on which FIR was

registered against present applicants and co-accused Dhananjay Burman.

Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant no. 1 was classmate and friend of complainant. During the

course of discussion, he only has suggested the name of Dhanajay and gave address of his office. Complainant himself visited the office of Dhananjay

and met with him. Upon asking that he had to deposit Rs. 20,000/- with his employee ei. Applicant no. 2 in the office, he deposited Rs.20,000/- with

him who also in turn given money receipt. Applicant no. 2 himself has not interacted with the complainant in any manner and has given any assurance

for providing Government employment but being an employee he accepted the money deposited by the complainant. He further read-over the written

complaint submitted before the police station on 10.05.2013 and submitted that there is no allegation against the present applicants that they have ever

discussed on the topic of providing Government employment to the complainant or have asked for deposit of any money. The entire allegations are

against Dhananjay Burman and not against the applicants. Applicant no. 1 is working in a Toyota showroom, Raipur and applicant no. 2 is working in

the Collectorate office, Raipur. At no point of time, police approached them for enquiry or investigation prior to year 2021, when the police approached

the applicants in the year 2021 they came to know that some criminal case is pending against them and thereafter they have approached the Court for

protection under Section 438 of CrPC.

On the other hand, Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that

in the written complaint itself the complainant has made a prayer that action to be taken against the present applicants and the co-accused Dhananjay

Buram. However, upon putting specific query with regard to any other allegation against the present applicants, he submits that in the complaint it is

mentioned that the applicant no. 1 was classmate and friend of complainant and he suggested the name of Dhananjay Burman and gave his address.

He further read-over the complaint and submitted that applicant no. 2-Vicky is in the office of Dhananjay Burman as an employee.

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

Taking into consideration, nature of allegation, the fact and circumstances of the case and the fact that in written complaint there is no allegation of

assurance given by applicants for Government employment and accepting money from him, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am

inclined to allow the bail application for grant of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in question (502/2013), they

shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting them on their executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety

in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting Officer. Applicants shall also abide by the following conditions:

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when required;

(ii) that the applicants 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the applicants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

(iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.