Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pandri, District Rai
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28795 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4967 of 2025 Azharuddin S/o Late Sahabuddin Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Urkura Aakashbadi Behind Siddhi Vinayak Hospital, P.S.- Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pandri, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
as the prima facie of the case that the applicant had borrowed a 4 sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) from the complainant, and after some time, when the applicant was unable to repay the borrowed amount, he issued a cheque for Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant as a matter of security, which, upon presentation in the bank, was allegedly dishonored with the remark “funds insufÏcient, moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and the applicant is in jail since 22.04.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some 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 – Azharuddin, involved in Crime No. 134/2023 registered at Police Station Pandri, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on her furnishing 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 5 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. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
: Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. For Complainant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.28 16:17:59 +0530 27.06.2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 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. 134/2023 registered at Police Station Pandri, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. As per the prosecution, the present applicant took a sum of Rs. 2 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) from the complainant by impersonating himself as an authorized trading agent of Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited, promising that he would help the complainant procure scrap materials from the said company through auction. After some time, when the applicant allegedly failed to fulfill his promise, he returned the money to the complainant by way of a cheque worth Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only), which, upon presentation in the bank, was dishonored with the remark “funds insufÏcient.” Based on the complainant’s report, the police registered an FIR against the present applicant for the alleged offence under Section 420 of the IPC and arrested him on 22.04.2025. 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 applicant is engaged in the business of scrap materials and has had commercial relations with the complainant, who used to lend money to the applicant on interest. He further submits that the applicant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) from the complainant, and after some time, when the applicant was unable to repay the borrowed amount, he issued a cheque for Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant only as a matter of security, which, upon presentation in the bank, was allegedly dishonored with the remark “funds insufÏcient.” He also submits that prima facie, there are no reasonable grounds for the prosecution to submit that the applicant is guilty of the alleged offence under Section 420 of the IPC. He 3 submits that the complainant is a very powerful and influential person who has falsely lodged the instant FIR against the applicant with the sole intention of extorting money, and the contents of the FIR are completely false and concocted. The complainant and the applicant used to be neighbors. The complainant, in conspiracy with the landlord of the applicant, has committed criminal breach of trust and has misappropriated the belongings of the applicant and his family to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only). He also submits that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedents in which he was granted bail, he is in jail since 22.04.2025, 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 submits that the charge - sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant and submits that the applicant cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-, thereby causing the complainant significant financial loss, hence, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case