Usha Kiran Mishra D/o Parmeshwar Dayal Mishra Aged About 66 Years R/o Ward No v. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Khamhardih, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39500 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 692 of 2025 Usha Kiran Mishra D/o Parmeshwar Dayal Mishra Aged About 66 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Bangla Bhatha, Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Khamhardih, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
2. Smt. Sonali Jindal W/o Vivek Jindal Aged About 36 Years R/o Flat No. 102, Block-C, Saphirre Green, Vidhan Sahab Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant For Non-Applicant/State For Non-Applicant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. No.2/Complainant PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.08 19:33:50 +0530 07.08.2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. This second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.206/2024 registered at Police Station – Khamhardih, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 34 of Indian Pendal Code. 2. Earlier anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court on merits 2 vide order dated 21.06.2024 passed in MCRCA No. 665/2024, against the said order, the applicant preferred an SLP No. 13733 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2024 with the liberty to the applicant to file appropriate application before this Court as may be permissible under the law, whereby statement was made that the applicant is ready to implead the complainant as a respondent as was stated before the Apex Court and is ready to deposit some more amount. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Sonam Jindal, lodged a written report at Police Station Khamhardih against co-accused Vatan Mishra @ Lucky, alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating under the false pretext of allotting a gas agency and doubling the investment within six months. It is alleged that Vatan Mishra visited the complainant’s shop and convinced her and her husband to invest in a gas cylinder business, promising high returns. To support his claim, Vatan Mishra arranged phone conversations between the complainant, her husband, and co-accused Naman Mishra and the present applicant, all of whom allegedly confirmed the same assurances. Relying on these representations, the complainant and her husband transferred substantial amounts to Vatan Mishra’s bank account. The complainant’s father-in-law also made transfers upon learning about the investment scheme. Initially, some dividend amounts were received in the complainant's account. Later, Vatan Mishra showed two gas agencies to the complainant’s husband, claiming they would be transferred to them after full payment. From October 2021 to April 2022, the complainant claims to have paid J1,25,00,000 in cash and J52,15,000 via RTGS, totaling J1,77,15,000. Against the promised J2,11,00,000 return, only J57,05,000 was received 3 (J43,80,000 through bank and J13,25,000 in cash). Subsequently, when the promised dividends stopped, Vatan Mishra began evading queries. His brother, Naman Mishra, allegedly threatened the complainant against filing any report. Vatan Mishra later promised to refund the amount and issued some cheques, but ultimately ceased all communication. Based on the complaint, Crime No. 206/2024 was registered at Police Station Khamhardih under Sections 34, 406, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against Vatan Mishra @ Lucky and others. Hence, this second anticipatory bail application. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the entire money transaction is with Vatan Mishra and the complainant, husband of the complainant and the father-in-law of the complainant has given the amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- through cash and Rs. 52,15,000/- through RTGS to Vatan Mishra and Vatan Mishra has refunded to the complainant a sum of Rs. 43,80,000/- through bank and Rs. 13,25,000/- cash, thus total Rs. 57,05,000/- has been paid by Vatan Mishra to the complainant, but as per the bank statement of Vatan Mishra as some bank statement are part of charge sheet, it reveals that by Bank transaction Vatan Mishra has transferred a sum of Rs. 67,45,000/- in the bank account of the complainant, husband of the complainant and the father-in-law of the complainant. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 submits that the non- applicant No.2/complainant has filed an additional affidavit wherein, in paragraph No. 3, it has been stated that an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- is due from the applicant, which was transferred to the applicant through bank transactions. 4 6. Learned counsel for the applicant in reply of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, further states that a portion of the said amount was paid by co-accused Vatan Mishra, who happens to be the nephew of the applicant. However, the applicant has failed to demonstrate through any documentary evidence, that the amount paid by co-accused Vatan Mishra includes the said amount of Rs. 13,00,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant undertakes to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- to the complainant, as reflected in Table–1 of paragraph No. 3 of the additional affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2/complainant. In furtherance of the undertaking given by the applicant who has filed Special Leave to Appeal(SLP) No. 13733 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on 04.10.2024, with the liberty to the applicant to file appropriate application before this Court as may be permissible under the law, whereby statement was made that he is ready to implead the complainant as a respondent as was stated before the Apex Court and is ready to deposit some more amount, and the applicant further undertakes to pay the amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of 06 months, as the applicant’s bank account has been seized by the Police in connection with the present case. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non-applicant No. 1/State opposes the bail application, and submits that the applicant is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail by this Court. 9. Learned counsel for non-applicant No. 2/complainant has no objection with the undertaking given by the applicant. 5 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation leveled against the applicant, and further the fact that as it is apparent that the first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 21.06.2024 passed in MCRCA No. 665/2024, against the said order, the applicant preferred an SLP No. 13733 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2024 with the liberty to the applicant to file appropriate application before this Court as may be permissible under the law, whereby statement was made that he is ready to implead the complainant as a respondent as was stated before the Apex Court and is ready to deposit some more amount due to the complainant and as the applicant undertakes to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- to the complainant, as reflected in Table–1 of paragraph No. 3 of the additional affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, in view of the same, the instant second anticipatory bail application is allowed subject to the condition undertaking given by the applicant in terms of the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 13733 of 2024, as this Court observed, it is directed to comply with the said undertaking within a period of six months starting from the issuance of the certified copy of this order, and the undertaking which has been given shall not prejudice by the trial Court as the observations and the undertakings which has been given is only for the purpose of the this bail application. 12. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Usha Kiran Mishra on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- 6 threat (a) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any to any person or promise inducement, acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant shall not involve herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti