Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3952 of 2025 1 - Gyanprakash Gupta S/o Dineshchand Gupta Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Kasba, Kakrala, Police Station - Aalapur, Tahsil - Dataganj, District - Badayun Uttar Pradesh Versus ... Applicant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Pandatarai, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant For Non-applicant For Objector
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Government Advocate : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate SB : Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice ORDER ON BOARD 20.05.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 63/2024 registered at Police Station - Pandatarai, District - Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120- B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. As per the case diary, the complainant, namely, Rupesh Chandravanshi has lodged a written complaint against applicant Gyan Prakash Gupta, that accused with a false intention, cheated him as he SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 entered into an agreement with the complainant for an amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- on Rs. 100/- Stam Paper in the prsence of witnesses for operating a factory from 01.11.2022 to 30.04.2024 and thereafter, the applicant purchases sugar cane from farmers at a higher rate and had not made any payment to the farmers. Subsequently, the applicant/accused on the pretext of running a jaggery factory entered into a criminal conspiracy and misappropriated Rs. 12,76,282/- by falsely showcasing that the applicant is selling molassses from the sugarcane and thereafter, applicant is absconding along with his brother namely Vikas Gupta who is also accused for the alleged conspiracy and forgery committed by the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant along with brother Vikas Gupta conspirated and defrauded Rs. 19,81,196/- with various innocent persons under the guise of running a jagger factory. Therefore, an offence u/s 420, 406, 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the present applicant was never involved in any kind of offence and further applicant never received any money from complainant who made allegations against him. He submits that the applicant is employed as a contract mechanic in the jaggery factory of the complainant Rupesh Chandranshi and he was not involved in the sale and purchase of molasses and jaggery to the dealers nor had made any payment to any of the persons on behalf of the applicant. He submits that the applicant is only playing a role of contractual mechanic in the factory of the applicant and there is direct evidence 3 against the applicant. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 11.03.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and would submit that the applicant is absconding from the year 2024 and has committed forgery with the innocent villagers and farmers by not making payment and allegedly misappropriating the funds. He further submits that the present applicant, along with other co-accused person i.e. his brother namely Vikas Gupta had allegedly cheated the complainant and various other persons of Rs. 19,81,196/- therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant would support the contentions raised by the counsel for the Non-Applicant and would submit that the applicant have committed forgery with the farmers from whom the applicant has purchased sugar canes by purchasing the sugar canes at a higher price and by not making payment in lieu of the same. He also contends that the applicant has committed forgery with the objector to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/- and have also misappropriated the funds and committed forgery with the labourers as also, the land lord of the factory. He submits that the applicant was absconding after committing the aforementioned crime and thus, he is not entitled for bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that in the present case the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and further, the fact that he is in jail since 11.03.2025, and conclusion of the trial may takes some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant – Gyanprakash Gupta, involved in Crime No. 63/2025 registered at Police Station - Pandatarai, District - Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120- B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 his 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 5 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. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Dey Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice