* - Rajesh Sharma S/o Late B. R. Sharma Aged About 64 Years, R/o v. * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.02 14:01:03 +0530 2025:CGHC:38163 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4498 of 2025 * - Rajesh Sharma S/o Late B. R. Sharma Aged About 64 Years, R/o House No. 449, Phase-I, Rajkishore Nagar, Police Station Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant/State ... Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate along with Mr. Kabir Kalwani, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/08/2025 1.
Legal Reasoning
The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 as he is jail since 29.05.2025 in connection with Crime No. 111/2020 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 406, 467, 468, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. In this case, the charge-sheet has been filed on 26.07.2025, and the criminal case is pending consideration before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur. 3. The facts of the present case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 2 30.03.2020 by the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Branch CIMS, Bilaspur, on the ground that the co-accused - Arun Kumar Sahu, Proprietor, Royal Fabricate Firm and Vishwajeet Bhowmik approached the Bank on 03 dates, i.e. 12.05.2016, 07.06.2016 and 18.05.2016 to provide Bank Guarantees to the tune of Rs.1.85 crores payable to NSIC Calcutta. Later on, those Bank Guarantees were withdrawn on 16.06.2016 and 23.06.2016 by Arun Kumar Sahu and Vishwajeet Bhowmik. 4. The applicant herein, who was posted on the post of Manager in the said Branch, issued a letter on 29.6.2016 to NSIC Calcutta to the effect that the Bank Guarantees to the tune of Rs.1.85 crores were lying with the Bank. Later on, NSIC Calcutta issued letters to the Bank to encash the Bank Guarantees as Arun Kumar Sahu and Vishwajeet Bhowmik purchased goods from NSIC Calcutta against bank guarantees, and payment was not made. Thereafter, the Branch Manager of the Bank conducted an internal inquiry and lodged the F.I.R.
Legal Reasoning
5. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would argue that the third anticipatory bail application was moved before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2022 in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1652/2021. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing an SLP. He would contend that the SLP was dismissed on 06.12.2022, but liberty was granted to the applicant to surrender and move an application for the grant of regular bail. Anticipatory bail applications, i.e. M.Cr.C. (A) No. 1652/2021, M.Cr.C. (A) No. 603/2020 and M.Cr.C.(A) No. 504/2021, were rejected by the High Court. 6. Mr. Paranjpe would also submit that the applicant is not involved in the 3 commission of the offence. He would argue that the Bank Guarantees were provided by Arun Kumar Sahu and Vishwajeet Bhowmik, and those Bank Guarantees were withdrawn by them. The allegation against the present applicant is that while discharging functions of the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank, vide letter dated 29.06.2016, he informed NSIC Calcutta that the Bank Guarantees were lying with the Bank. He would further argue that the act of the applicant may be termed as dereliction of duty or negligence on his part. He would also argue that there is no allegation of fraud with the Bank. He would state that the Bank has not suffered any loss, but the F.I.R. has been lodged by the Branch Manager of the Bank. With regard to the criminal antecedents of the applicant, Mr. Paranjpe would submit that 03 crime numbers were registered in the year 2019 against the applicant and in all those cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. He would further state that the applicant is a senior citizen, aged about 64 years and has been languishing in jail since 29.05.2025; therefore, the application may be allowed. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ayub Khan Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3763. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate, would oppose. Ms. Shukla would submit that the applicant is the main culprit and without his assistance, it would not be possible for the other co-accused persons to commit such a fraud. She would further submit that Bank Guarantees were provided by 02 other co- accused and later on, those Bank Guarantees were withdrawn by them. She would contend that, deliberately with the intention to cheat 4 NSIC Calcutta, the present applicant issued a letter dated 29.6.2016 indicating that the Bank Guarantees were lying with the Bank on that date, whereas those bank guarantees were withdrawn prior to 29.6.2016. She would also submit that there are 03 criminal antecedents of the applicant registered in the year 2019 for the commission of cheating, fraud and other offences. She has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandrakeshwar Prasad Alias Chandu Babu Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2016) 9 SCC 443. She would submit that the bail application deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 9. In the matter of Chandrakeshwar Prasad (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the court should consider the prayer for bail after taking into consideration the overall facts. A duty is cast upon the Court in addressing such a prayer in a case on its own merits, and while applying its discretion, it must be applied in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The relevant paragraphs No. 9 to 12 are reproduced herein below:- “9. Although it has to be accepted that the respondent-accused has already been granted bail by the courts concerned in other cases, a duty is cast upon the Court in addressing such a prayer in a case on its own merits, and while applying its discretion, it must be applied in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. In support of this proposition, Mr. Bhushan has relied upon a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, wherein it was held in para 11 as follows: (SCC pp. 535-36) “11. The law in regard to grant of refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner 5 and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a)The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b)Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.