Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13695 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR1 MCRC No. 2277 of 2025 Mahbub Ansari S/o Mohd. Safique Ansari Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sonpur, Out Post Basdei, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur (C.G.) versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police of Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21/03/2025 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. 650/2024, registered at Police Station – Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a report was lodged by one Mohd. Altaf against seven persons, without mentioning the 2 name of the present applicant in the FIR. According to the complainant, on 15.05.2024, Ashfaq Ulla, Miraj Ansari, Shahrukh Ansari, Razia, Noor Jahan, Jarifullah, and Kyum Ansari approached him and claimed that Ashfaq Ulla and his father Jarifullah could double the invested money within 52 days, thereby luring the complainant into investing money. The complainant gave Rs. 7,50,000/- on 21.05.2024, after which Ashfaq Ulla gave him a cheque of Rs. 7,50,000/- and asked him to withdraw the amount after 52 days. Additionally, the complainant was given Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash. However, the cheque issued in favor of the complainant was dishonored due to insufficient balance, leading to the complainant lodging a report at Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), upon which the aforementioned offences were registered against the present applicant and other co-accused persons. 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 memorandum statement of applicant is concerned, the applicant himself invested the money on being asked by the Ashfaq Ulla and his father Jarifullah, so the applicant also borrowed the money form his nearby and invested the same. He also submits that other co-accused persons, namely, Mirajuddin, Wasim Akram and Najir Hussain have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 12.02.2025, 06.03.2025 and 06.03.2025 in MCRC Nos. 463/2025, 1800/2025 3 and 1861/2025 respectively, and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent, the applicant is in jail since 19.01.2025, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the complainant alleged that he was lured into investing money with a promise to double the amount within 52 days. Although he received a cheque and some cash, the cheque was dishonored due to insufÏcient balance, leading to the registration of the case, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 19.01.2025, the fact that other co-accused persons, namely, Mirajuddin, Wasim Akram and Najir Hussain have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 12.02.2025, 06.03.2025 and 06.03.2025 in MCRC Nos. 463/2025, 1800/2025 and 1861/2025 respectively and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused, so far as the criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, he has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the 4 view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Let the Applicant- Mahbub Ansari, involved in Crime No. 650/2024, registered at Police Station – Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 5 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan