Raipur (C.G.) v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Of
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:14946 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2038 of 2025 Ejaz Czar S/o Hamid Hussain Aged About 51 Years R/o Avanti Vihar Sector - 01 Telibandha Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Police Station Telibandha Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by For Non-Applicant//State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General. For Objector : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate. Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 27/03/2025 1 The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 99/2025, registered at Police Station – Telibandha Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 409, 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant has used the information of the complainant company and without the 2 knowledge of the complainant has used the same information in a New company as a result of which the company of the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 15-20 Lacs. 3 It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She further submitted that the FIR has been registered by the complainant out of vengeance malice and personal vendetta and on account of her relationship, she left the present applicant and went to Canada and opened incorporated new company there and thereafter through her conduct tried to damage the business of Gravity Integrates Private Limited and Worldwide Transcripts Private Limited. The applicant on 25.05.2024 has lodged a report against the complainant with regard to the cheating being done by the complainant with respect to the affairs of the company and she conspired to steal and misappropriate the property of the companies and the the electronic files, database and other sensitive information have been stolen and have been used to access the company mail account for which the FIR has been registered. The complainant has not herself given any information in the ROC with respect to change in address as she has shifted to Canada at her own will. She also submitted that purely a company dispute has been given a criminal cloak by the complainant in order to harass the applicant and other co-accused. She further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has not been filed and the applicant is in jail since 17.02.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4 On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail 3 application and submitted that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. 5 Learned counsel for the objector opposed the bail application and submitted that the present applicant/husband was continuously harassing the objector mentally and physically and was pressurizing for transferring her shares in the company and other joint assets. He further submitted that as her husband attitude towards her never changed but was going from bad to worse day by day therefore on 04.04.2024, Objector/wife filed a divorce petition before the Family Court, Raipur, citing continuous cruelty and irreparable marital breakdown. Upon receipt of notice of Divorce, in retaliation the applicant falsely implicated objector/wife in a criminal FIR alleging cheating and sending inappropriate pornographic email from company’s email address sent to multiple individuals which is completely untrue, deliberately omitting her rightful shareholding status in the companies. Hence, he is not entitle for grant of bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant happens to be husband of the complainant and a company dispute exists between them, and further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has not been filed and he is in jail since 17.02.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 6 7 8 Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Ejaz Czar, involved in Crime No. 99/2025, registered at Police Station 4 – Telibandha Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 409, 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 his, 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 5 opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate 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 his in accordance with law. 9 Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti