Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:11168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 990 of 2025 Narendra Himmat Bhai Gondalia S/o- Himmatbhai Ramjibhai Gondalia Aged About 31 Years R/o- National Park Society, Jakatnala, Surat, Plot No. 59, P.S- Sarthana, District- Surat, Gujarat. versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O P.S- Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.03.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 278/2024, registered at Police Station : Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Shweta Mehra lodged a written report on 13.05.2024, alleging that on RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 08.05.2024, she received a message on her WhatsApp number through a community group from mobile, asking her to complete a task and earn money. As a result, a total amount of Rs. 29,49,688/- was fraudulently taken from her through an online scam. Accordingly, an offence under Section 420 and 34 of the IPC was registered. During the investigation, the applicant/accused was arrested on 31.08.2024 and has been in jail since then. The allegation against the applicant is that on 09.05.2024, an amount of Rs. 13,01,888 was transferred to account number 339705500392, which is owned by the applicant, indicating his involvement in the offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the report has been lodged after the delay but no satisfactory explanation has been given for that and further no name of applicant is mentioned in the FIR. He further submits that no such offence has been committed by applicant and further no mobile number of applicant’s has been used for the commission of crime and further no incriminating material against applicant has been seized. He further submits that when it came to knowledge of applicant that some amount has been credited in account number of applicant, applicant immediately made a report before local police station as that account was not operated by the applicant since long and from some unknown source some amount has been credited. He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 3 31.08.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant/accused was involved in an online fraud, where the complainant was deceived into transferring Rs. 29,49,688/- under the pretext of earning money. The investigation reveals that a significant amount of Rs. 13,01,888/- was transferred to the applicant’s bank account, establishing his possible involvement. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the allegation is that the applicant/accused was involved in an online fraud, where the complainant was deceived into transferring Rs. 29,49,688/- under the pretext of earning money, but when it came to knowledge of applicant that some amount has been credited in account number of applicant, applicant immediately made a report before local police station as that account was not operated by the applicant since long and from some unknown source some amount has been credited, further the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and he has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 31.08.2024, 4 the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Narendra Himmat Bhai Gondalia, involved in Crime No. 278/2024, registered at Police Station : Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the 5 date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant 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 applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him, in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice