Sarguja, (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Of
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:19112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2918 of 2025 Moh. Ataullah Ansari S/o Late Sadiq Ansari Aged About 36 Years R/o Mominpura, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer- Rajpur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant For Non-applicant/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 28.04.2025 Order on Board 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. 74/2024, registered at Police Station – Rajpur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that on 19.02.2024 the complainant filed a complaint at the Police Station concerned alleging that an amount of Rs. 5,667/- has, without any authorization been deducted by TVS Credit 2 Service Ltd. from his bank acocunt and when he went to enquire the same from his band manager, he infromed that 2 vehicles (one TVS i- Qube and one RE Bullet 350) have been financed in his name, denying which he requested the bank manager to hold his account transaction and filed a complaint at Police Station concerned. On the basis of investigation made by the Police authorities it was found thatmain accused Sharukh along with Wasim Akram, Manish David and Repesh Pandey by using forged documents of the complainant got the motorcycle financed and later sold it to another person as a second hand vehicle, when the main accused was arrested, on the basis of the memorandum statement of the main accused person Sharukh, the name of the applicant who was the sales manager of the TVS Showroom at the time of incident, has come into light, and has been arrested by the Police. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the bail applications of the co-accused persons have been allowed by this Court vide orders dated 21.04.2025 and 21.04.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 2815/2025 and 2649/2025. The applicant is in jail since 08.02.2025 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 opposes the bail application and submits that there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that on 19.02.2024 the complainant filed a 3 complaint at the Police Station concerned alleging that an amount of Rs. 5,667/- has, without any authoritzation been deducted by TVS Credit Service Ltd. from his bank acocunt and when he went to enquire the same from his band manager, he infromed that 2 vehicles (one TVS i- Qube and one RE Bullet 350) have been financed in his name, denying which he requested the bank manager to hold his account transaction and filed a complaint at Police Station concerned. On the basis of investigation made by the Police authorities it was found thatmain accused Sharukh along with Wasim Akram, Manish David and Repesh Pandey by using forged documents of the complainant got the motorcycle financed and later sold it to another person as a second hand vehicle, when the main accused was arrested, on the basis of the memorandum statement of the main accused person Sharukh, the name of the applicant who was the sales manager of the TVS Showroom at the time of incident, has come into light, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of 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 there is no any criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant and the bail applications of the co-accused persons have been allowed by this Court vide orders dated 21.04.2025 and 21.04.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 2815/2025 and 2649/2025, the applicant is in jail since 08.02.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 4 7. Let applicant, Moh. Ataullah Ansari, involved in Crime No. 74/2024, registered at Police Station – Rajpur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 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 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 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Rajshekhar Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice