Durg, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2040 of 2025 2025:CGHC:12339 NAFR Dr. Manmohan Kumar Khanduja S/o Shri D.P. Khanduja Aged About 68 Years R/o House No. 36- A/6, Nehru Nagar, East Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Adv along with Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Adv For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Upasne, G.A. For Objector Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.03.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.49/2025, registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that Dr. M.K. Khanduja, along 2 with co-accused Rajesh Rai, orchestrated a fraudulent scheme under the guise of an investment opportunity, inducing the complainant, Prabhat Narayan Shukla, to invest a total of ₹52 lakhs in BSR Health Venture. The complainant was assured that his funds, deposited under the Senior Citizen Fixed Deposit and Monthly Income Schemes (MIS), would double upon maturity after five years. As security, Dr. M.K. Khanduja issued post-dated cheques to the complainant, purportedly guaranteeing repayment. However, upon maturity, despite multiple demands and assurances from Dr. Khanduja that the amount would be repaid from the proceeds of his hospital's sale, no payment was made. The prosecution contends that this constitutes a deliberate act of cheating and criminal breach of trust, as the accused allegedly had no intention of repaying the investment and misappropriated the complainant's funds. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution claims that the accused intentionally deceived the complainants and dishonestly misappropriated the invested amount. 3. Learned Senior Advocate as well as counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence. They further submits that there is no direct allegation against the present applicant and only vague allegations are levelled against him. Looking to the material available on record, prima facie case is not made out against the present applicant. Further, co-accused, namely, Rajesh Rai has already been granted by the learned trial Court and the case of the present applicant is 3 identical to that of the co-accused. Also, the applicant has been granted similar protection by this Court in other cases bearing FIR No. 119/2022 (under Sections 420, 406, 34 IPC) and FIR No. 1230/2024 (under Sections 420, 406, 34 IPC). In both case, this Court was pleased to grant regular bail to the applicant and in FIR No. 119/2022 this Court has further stayed the proceedings in the trial. They lastly submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 23.01.2025 and though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that co-accused person namely Rajesh Rai has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 5. Learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the main accused in the case is Dr. M.K. Khanduja, who along with other accused have cheated the complainant of about Rs. 38 lakhs and about more than 300 other people by conspiring to recover double the amount in five years and dishonestly defrauded more than Rs. 1 crore. The applicant has a key role in the crime. Hence, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that co-accused, namely, Rajesh Rai has already been 4 granted bail by the learned trial Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused and further, the applicant has been granted bail in other cases by this Court being MCRC No. 8665/2024, vide order dated 03.01.2025 bearing FIR No. 119/2022 (under Sections 420, 406, 34 IPC) and MCRC No. 612/2025, vide order dated 05.03.2025, FIR No. 1230/2024 (under Sections 420, 406, 34 IPC). In both the cases, this Court granted regular bail to the applicant and in CRMP No. 618/2025, vide order dated 19.02.2025, this Court has further stayed the proceedings in the trial. Further, in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.01.2025 hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Let applicant, Dr. Manmohan Kumar Khanduja, involved in Crime No.49/2025, registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the IPC, 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 5 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal