Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 971 of 2025 Manikchand Yadav S/o Shri Ganeshwar Yadav, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village - Chhatasarai (Chharratangar), Thana - Bagbahar, Distt. - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Bagbahar, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) 2.
Legal Reasoning
156(3) of Cr.P.C., examine the complaint prima facie to ascertain whether the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence are present. However, in the instant case, without properly examining the material available on record and without considering the fact that there was no involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence, the learned Magistrate directed registration of the FIR. The complainant has falsely and deliberately implicated the applicant in the present case to save himself, as an inquiry was being conducted by the Regional OfÏcer against the Branch Manager of the company, in which the involvement of respondent No. 2 (complainant) was found. Therefore, to protect himself, the complainant lodged the report and immediately filed the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the allegation against the applicant is that L&T 5 Financial Services, a private company engaged in providing loan facilities to people in the Raigarh and Jashpur areas of Chhattisgarh State, appointed the applicant as a Collection Executive on 05.03.2019. In this role, he collected installment amounts from customers but failed to deposit the said amounts into the company's account. During the investigation, it was found that from September 2021 to March 2023, the applicant collected Rs. 43,04,282/- from 68 customers but deposited only Rs. 12,68,262/- into the accounts of 20 customers, leaving a remaining amount of Rs. 30,36,020/- unaccounted for, therefore, looking to seriousness of the case, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present matter. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and material on record in the case diary also considering the fact that the allegation against the applicant is that L&T Financial Services, a private company engaged in providing loan facilities to people in the Raigarh and Jashpur areas of Chhattisgarh State, appointed the applicant as a Collection Executive on 05.03.2019, in this role, he collected installment amounts from customers but failed to deposit the said amounts into the company's account, during the investigation, it was found that from September 2021 to March 2023, the applicant collected Rs. 43,04,282/- from 68 customers but deposited only Rs. 12,68,262/- into the accounts of 20 customers, leaving a remaining amount of Rs. 30,36,020/- 6 unaccounted for, therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Manikchand Yadav, involved in Crime No. 73/2024, registered at Police Station – Bagbahar, District – Jashpur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek
Arguments
Nitesh Kumar Naidu S/o Shri Kushal Naidu, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Occupation - Pvt. Service As Regional Collection Manager, L And T Financial Services, 15th Floor, P.S. Srrijan Tek Park, Plot No. 32, Block D.N. Salt Lack City Kolkata (West Bengal) Branch OfÏcer, L And T Financial Services Branch - Raigarh, Distt- Raigarh ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.05 14:50:13 +0530 (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 04.07.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 73/2024, registered at Police Station – Bagbahar, District – 2 Jashpur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). 2. The prosecution case in short is that the complainant (respondent No. 2) filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. along with a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the applicant on 20.09.2023, with the averment that L & T Financial Services is a private company engaged in providing loan facilities to people in the Raigarh and Jashpur areas of Chhattisgarh State. It is stated that the company appointed the applicant as a Collection Executive on 05.03.2019, and he collected installment amounts from customers. However, the said amounts were not deposited in the company’s account. During the investigation, it was found that from September 2021 to March 2023, the applicant collected Rs. 43,04,282/- from 68 customers, but only Rs. 12,68,262/- was deposited in the accounts of 20 customers, and the remaining amount of Rs. 30,36,020/- was not deposited. A report was made to the police on 26.04.2023, and thereafter to the Superintendent of Police on 27.04.2023. Subsequently, the complaint case along with the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate, upon receiving the application, called for a report from the concerned police station vide order dated 16.10.2023. The police submitted a report stating that Crime No. 173/2023 had already been registered for the same incident and that the complainant’s application dated 27.04.2023 was already under investigation in the said crime. The case was 3 fixed for arguments on the application, but without considering the said inquiry report, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 23.03.2024 directing the police of Police Station Bagbahar to register the FIR, conduct the inquiry, and submit a report without delay. Pursuant to the order dated 23.03.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate, the police of Police Station Bagbahar registered Crime No. 73/2024 on 26.04.2024 against the applicant for offences under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC and sought to arrest him. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated by respondent No. 2 (complainant) in the present case by filing an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to save the Branch Manager of the company. Pursuant to the said application, the learned Magistrate directed registration of the FIR, despite the fact that the applicant was appointed and worked only as a collection clerk, and after collecting the amounts, he deposited the same in the branch ofÏce on the same day. The police of Police Station Supela registered the offence as mentioned in the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. without conducting any preliminary enquiry, merely on the instructions and order of the Magistrate, despite the fact that for the same incident, another Crime No. 173/2023 had already been registered against the applicant, and for one incident, two crimes cannot be registered. He also submits that the learned Magistrate failed to consider that the complainant, with the intention to harass the applicant due to ill- will and to save the Branch Manager and higher ofÏcers of the 4 company, filed the complaint against the applicant, thereby falsely implicating a poor villager. He further submits that the learned Magistrate failed to consider that a prativedan (report) was called from the police, which clearly showed that an offence regarding the said incident had already been registered and that the present complaint had also been considered during the investigation of Crime No. 173/2023. However, contrary to the prativedan, the learned Magistrate passed the order for registration of the FIR. It is required that the Magistrate, while exercising powers under Section