AN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur, Chh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:20283 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3418 of 2025 Rukunuddin @ Rukku S/o Late Munshi Mehruddin Aged About 55 Years R/o Infront Of Rajkumar College Gate, Karbala- Raipur, District Raipur, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Chitranjay Singh Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/05/2025 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 15/2025 registered at Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Smt. Praveen Agrawal 2 filed a complaint alleging therein that an agreement was executed on 13.12.2024 to purchase a land situated at Mandir Hasaud which was in the name of Shri Pushpa Sarathi. On 20.12.2024, when the parties reached to registrar offeice and it was agreed that the sale deed was to be registered in two parts in the joint names of the complainant and Smt. Sangeeta Agrawal. Co-accused (Smt. Devteen Verma) posing as Rajaram Sarathi’s wife signed as the seller, and a total of Rs.2.17 crores was paid via cheques in the name of Pushpa Sarthi @ Devteen Verma. Later on 09.01.2025, it was discovered by the complainant that he has been defrauded by Devteen Verma. It has been further alleged that the fraudulent transaction was allegedly arranged by Murli Gajwani and Vikram Singh Patel, who admitted the same. It was further alleged that Ruknuddin Khan and applicant also conspired in preparing forged documents. Based on the complainant, a case has been registered against the applicant and co-accused as aforementioned and subsequently, applicant was 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 two of the identically situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court co-accused, namely, Vikram Singh Patel has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 in MCRCA No.384 of 2025 and co-accused, Satish Sinha has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 in 3 MCRC No.3083 of 2025. The applicant is in jail since 10.01.2025, the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2020 under the Excise Act, which is pending, 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. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to have conspired in preparing forged documents for the said sale deed and had accompanied other co-accused persons, further applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2020 under the Excise Act, therefore, he 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 10.01.2025, the fact that though it is alleged that the applicant too conspired in preparing forged documents for the said sale deed, but two of the identically situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court co-accused, namely, Vikram Singh Patel has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 in MCRCA No.384 of 2025 and co-accused, Satish Sinha has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 in MCRC No.3083 of 2025, so far as criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, applicant has only one criminal antecedent, which is of the year 2020 under the Excise Act 4 and is still pending, further charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant-Rukunuddin @ Rukku, involved in Crime No. 15/2025 registered at Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS, 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, 5 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 Akhil