Subrat Bhattacharya S/o Shri V Bhattacharya Aged About 60 Years Road No. 72, Post v. State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. CRA No. 6
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 632 of 2024 Subrat Bhattacharya S/o Shri V Bhattacharya Aged About 60 Years Road No. 72, Post Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. CRA No. 628 of 2024 --- Respondent Subrat Bhattacharya S/o Shri V Bhattacharya, Aged About 60 Years At Road No. 72, Post Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. --- Appellant Versus ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.11 11:11:28 +0530 State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. CRA No. 555 of 2024 --- Respondent Gurmeet Singh S/o Kulwant Singh Aged About 57 Years At- Eklavya Apartment, Sector 13, Rohini, New Delhi --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O P.S. Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh CRA No. 615 of 2024 --- Respondent Gurmeet Singh S/o Kulwant Singh Aged About 57 Years At- Eklavya Apartment, Sector- 13, Rohini, New Delhi. 2 Versus --- Appellant State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O P. S. Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 629 of 2024 Gurmeet Singh S/o Kulwant Singh Aged About 57 Years At Eklavya Apartment, Sector 13, Rohini, New Delhi. --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh CRA No. 625 of 2024 --- Respondent
Legal Reasoning
Subrat Bhattacharya S/o Shri V Bhattacharya Aged About 60 Years At Road No.72, Post Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Vinay Nagdev and Mr. Girish Sahu, Advocates For Respondent/ State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General and Ajit Singh, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 0 9 . 01 .202 5 Judgment on Board 1. Though the above-captioned Criminal Appeals arise out of three different Crime Nos. i.e. Crime No. 96/2016 (challenged in CRA Nos. 632/2024 & 555/2024) registered at Police Station, Surajpur, 3 District – Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) read with Section 4,5, & 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the Act of 1978’) and Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act of 2005); Crime No. 71/2016 ( challenged in CRA Nos. 615/2024 & 629/2024) registered at Police Station, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 406, 407, 420, 120B, 34 of IPC read with Section 4 of the Act of 1978 and Section 6 & 10 of the Act of 2005 and Crime No. 182/2016 (challenged in CRA Nos. 628/2024 & 625/2024) registered at Police Station, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B of IPC read with Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Act of 1978 and Section 10 of the Act of 2005 by three different complainants, but, considering the fact that allegations levelled against the appellants in all the FIRs are of similar in nature, they are clubbed
Decision
and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These Criminal Appeals have been preferred under Section 16(1) of the Act, 2005 for grant of anticipatory bail as the appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with aforementioned offences. 3. As per case of prosecution, the complainants have lodged three different written complaints at respective Police Stations stating 4 therein that they had received information from an agent of Pearls Agrotec Corporation Limited (PACL) that on investing certain amounts, they would receive higher returns as maturity amount after expiry of the maturity period, upon which they had invested certain amounts, but after expiry of the maturity period, the maturity amount was not returned to them. Based upon such allegation, aforementioned offences have been registered against the Employees and Directors of the PACL including the appellants who are one of the Directors and Chartered Accountants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present cases and prima facie the ingredients of the alleged offence are not attracted against them. The appellants have not been named in the FIR, not during investigation any document or implicating material has been seized or recovered in order to show the active participation of the appellants and there also no allegation in the charge-sheet against the appellants. The appellants were only pay-roll employees of the Company and had noting to do with the day-to-day affairs. It is also apparent from the charge-sheet that the appellant had neither induced nor collected any sum from any of the complainants or the consumers of the company, therefore, the alleged offences are not attracted against them. It has been further argued that the appellants were initially arrested by the CBI and since then they remained incarcerated for more than 07 5 years and after their first incarceration, several offences have been registered. It is also worth mentioning here that despite the specific knowledge of the judicial custody of the appellants, the concerned Police Stations never tried to make a formal arrest or obtain production warrant for their appearance. It has been also submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, while deciding interim applications i.e. I.A. no. 156411 of 2022 in TC(Crl) No.1 of 2016 and I.A. No. 46851 in TC(Crl.) No. 3 of 2016 with WP(Crl.) No. 326 of 2023, has not only released the appellants on interim bail for 3 months to facilitate them to seek bails from the concerned Court. A copy of interim bail order dated 05.09.2023 is filed as Annexure-A/2. Considering the similar set of facts, after the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the High Court of MP and the Sessions Courts at Thalaseri and Bengaluru have enlarged the appellants on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that in the same FIRs, 2 other co- accused Joginder Tiger and Sikander Singh Dhillon have been enlarged on regular bail by this Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 07.11.2023 and 16.12.2022 in MCRC Nos. 6759 of 2023 and MCRC No. 10042 of 2022. It has been further argued that the disposal of the cases will take time & till then it is not desirable to keep the appellants languishing in jail. The appellants are ready to abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail. As such, they prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for 6 grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that these appeals under Section 16(1) of the Act of 2005 are not maintainable as in view of the Section 15 of the said Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. He further submitted that in view of Section 16(2) of the said Act, 75% of the amount in question shall be deposited by the appellant before his appeal could be heard. Learned State counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed the Division Bench of this Court in WP(Cr) No. 141 of 2023 in the matter of Rajeshwar Prasad Dwivedi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh decided on 14.03.2023. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It transpires from the record that the appellants have preferred applications under Section 438 CrPC before the Court concerned and the same have been rejected vide orders dated 09.01.2024 and against the said order, the present Criminal Appeals have been filed in view of Section 16(1) of the Act of 2005. However, the learned State counsel has made preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present appeals and states that in view of Section 15 of the Act of 2005, anticipatory bail cannot be granted, to which learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention to Section 16 of the said Act, which is quoted herein below : 7 “16. Appeal. (1) An Appeal against the order passed by the special court shall lie to the High Court within thirty days from the date of order. (2) No appeal shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of seventy five percent deposit of liability with competent authority.” 8. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that as per Section 16(1) of the said Act, an appeal against the order passed by the Special Court shall lie to the High Court within thirty days from the date of order, hence, the present appeals. But, the learned State Counsel has submitted that as per Section 16(2) of the Act of 2005, 75% of the amount in question is required to be deposited by the appellant before his appeal could be heard and the Registry of this Court has also objected regarding maintainability of the appeals, to which learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he had filed applications, seeking exemption from compliance of Section 16(2) of the Act of 2005, stating therein that the trial is still to be concluded and no amount has yet been determined by the trial Court and the exact amount to be deposited is to be determined by the trial Court, therefore, in such a circumstances, deposition of the amount for filing the present appeals be exempted. 9. The first question for consideration would be whether in view of bar contained in Section 15 of the Act of 2005, the application for anticipatory bail is maintainable ? 10. Section 10 of the Act of 2005 states as under : 8 “10. Punishment for defaults by financial establishment – Where any financial establishment fraudulently defaults or any financial establishment acts in a calculated manner with an intention to defraud the depositors; every person including the promoter, partner, director, manager or any other person or an employee responsible for the management of or conducting of the business or affairs or of such financial establishment shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 years but may extend to ten years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but may extend to five lakhs rupees and such financial establishment shall also be liable to fine not less than three lakhs rupees but may extend to ten lakhs rupees.” 11. Section 15 of the Act of 2005 provides as under : - “15. Anticipatory bail not to be granted – Notwithstanding anything contained in section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No.2 of 1974) no application for anticipatory bail shall lie for an offence punishable under the Act.” 12. The bar under Section 15 of the Act of 2005 came to be considered before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in WP(CR) No.141/2023 (supra) considered the issue and held as under :- “15. Reverting finally to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law laid down by their 9 Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is quite vivid that where no prima facie material exists warranting arrest in complaint or where the complaint does not make out a prima facie case under the Act of 2005, the concerned Court will have power and jurisdiction to consider the application for grant of anticipatory bail in appropriate case of exceptional nature and in that case, bar under Section 15 of the Act of 2005 would not come in way to consider the application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, we clarify the legal position.” 13. In view of the aforesaid decision of passed by a Division Bench of this Court, the application under Section 438 CrPC i.e. for grant of anticipatory bail is maintainable where no prima facie material exists warranting arrest in complaint or where the complaint does not make out a prima facie case under the Act of 2005. But, in the present case, looking to the nature of the offences and the number of FIRs, which have been lodged and the huge amount of money involved and also considering the fact that it is an organized crime and the number of cases registered against the appellants throughout the country, it is not possible for this Court to hold that no prima facie material exits warranting arrest. 14. Considering the fact that present appeals are barred by limitation of 25 days, whereas as per Section 16(1) of the Act of 2005, an appeal against the order passed by the Special Court shall lie to the High Court within thirty days from the date of order and also considering the fact that as per 16(2) of the said Act, no appeal 10 shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of seventy five percent deposit of liability with competent authority, which has not been complied with in the instant case, as such, the appeals are non maintainable. 15. Accordingly, all the appeals are hereby dismissed as not maintainable. 16. Consequently, applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal as well as applications, seeking exemption form compliance of Section 16(2) of the Act of 2005, are also rejected. However, the appellants are liberty to take recourse to law for regular bail. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Chandra/Rajshekhar