Durg (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13404 NAFR AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2213 of 2025 1 - Devkrishna Sahu S/o Narad Das Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Ramnagar, Muktidham Road, Near Chaurasiya Jwelers, Supela, Bhilai, P.S.- Vaishali Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Gyan Prakash Sahu S/o Rajendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o House No.-21, Hanthkhoj Para, Ward No.-14, Utai, District- Durg (C.G.), Present Address - Kuber Enclave, Kohka- Junwani Road, Bhilai, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. For Objector : Mr. Arvind Kumar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/03/2025 2 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 19/2025 registered at Police Station Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.01.2025, on January 12, 2025, complainant Sevti Sahu filed a written complaint at the Dongargarh Police Station in Rajnandgaon District, alleging that in 2019-20, the applicants and co-accused Yogesh Kumar Sahu persuaded her to invest Rs.20 lakhs with the promise of doubling her investment within two years, believing on that she transferred the amount to the applicants' account. Thereafter, she received Rs.7,55,500/- in her account and have refused to pay the remaining amount. On the basis of that, aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant and subsequently they have been arrested. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the applicants are also the victims as they have also invested in the company, the applicants are neither connected with the company nor the employee of the company, further there is four years of delay in lodging the FIR. He also submits that the co-accused, Yogesh Kumar Sahu has already been granted anticipatory bail by learned trial Court, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure A-2. The applicants are in jail since 3 12.02.2025 (applicant No.1) and 14.02.2025 (applicant No.2), the applicants have criminal antecedents, applicant No.1 has two criminal antecedents of the years 2024 and 2025 under the IPC, wherein, in case Crime No.437/2024, applicant has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2025 in MCRC No.1736/2025 and applicant No.2 has three criminal antecedents of the year 2024 and 2025, wherein, in case Crime No.314/2024, applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2024 in MCRCA No.884/2024, further charge-sheet has not been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case and submits that applicant have criminal antecedents, applicant No.1 has two criminal antecedents and applicant No.2 has three criminal antecedents, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. Learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail application and submits that the applicants alongwith other co-accused Yogesh Kumar Sahu persuaded the complainant to invest Rs.20 lakhs with the promise of doubling her investment within two years, believing on that she transferred the amount to the applicants' account and received Rs.7,55,500/- in her account, thereafter have refused to pay the remaining amount, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused 4 the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants since 12.02.2025 (applicant No.1) and 14.02.2025 (applicant No.2), further considering the allegation levelled against the applicants that they alongwith another co-accused person have persuaded the complainant to invest Rs.20 lakhs with the promise of doubling her investment within two years, believing on that she transferred the amount to the applicants' account and received Rs.7,55,500/- in her account, thereafter applicants have refused to pay the remaining amount, also considering the criminal antecedents of the applicants that applicant No.1 has two criminal antecedents of the years 2024 and 2025 under the IPC, wherein, in case Crime No.437/2024, applicant has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2025 in MCRC No.1736/2025 and applicant No.2 has three criminal antecedents of the year 2024 and 2025, wherein, in case Crime No.314/2024, applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2024 in MCRCA No.884/2024, so far as co-accused is concerned, co- accused, namely, Yogesh Kumar Sahu has already been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court on 19.02.2025, further charge- sheet has not been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicants-Devkrishna Sahu and Gyan Prakash Sahu, involved in Crime No. 19/2025 registered at Police Station Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence 5 punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the IPC, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of 6 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil