Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38833 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2390 of 2025 Ajay Sahu S/o Shri Angira Lal Sahu, Aged About 47 Years R/o Raipura, Mahadevghat, Behind Sai Temple, Police Station D.D. Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station D.D. Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. ---- Respondents Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.08.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 528 of BNSS for being aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 262/2025 by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, District – Raipur (C.G.), arising out of the order 2 dated 25.04.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 813/2024 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Raipur (C.G.), whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner before the revisional Court was dismissed. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No. 460/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused persons before the Police Station Deen Dayal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The said report was registered on the written complaint made by one Mukesh Soni. It was alleged in the FIR that between 16.02.2023 to 30.04.2023 Subhelal Sahu and his accomplices including the petitioner by criminal conspiracy cheated the complainant for Rs. 8,36,400/- by luring him to get 15% profit per month on investing money in Crypto Currency. The petitioner was arrested by the police of Police Station D.D. Nagar, District Raipur in Crime No. 460/2023. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed by the police before the JMFC against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 34 and 201 of the IPC. The co-accused Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu preferred a Special Leave Petition Criminal No. 1314/2025 against the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by this Court in MCRC No. 2810/2024 denying him regular bail. Co-accused Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu was granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court granting benefit of 3 Section 437(6) of CrPC vide order dated 18.02.2025 as the trial in the case could not be commenced within 60 days. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on the submission made by his counsel that the alleged scam is approximately of Rs. 4 Crores but Rs. 35 Lakhs has been attributed to Subhelal, imposed a condition to deposit Rs. 35 Lakhs before the trial Court within a period of 6 months. The petitioner preferred a bail application before the Learned JMFC, Raipur and was granted bail on the ground of parity and similarity but the same condition of depositing Rs. 35 Lakhs within 6 months was also imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter preferred an application before the Learned JMFC, Raipur for dilution/deletion of the condition imposed on him to deposit an amount of Rs. 35 Lakhs. The said application was dismissed by Learned JMFC, Raipur vide order dated 25.04.2025. The order dated 25.04.2025 passed by Learned JMFC Raipur was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional Court concerned in Criminal Revision No. 262/2025. The said criminal revision was rejected by learned revisional Court vide order dated 07.07.2025 holding that the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner is not maintainable and further proceeded to reject the revision on merits. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that one of the co-accused (Subelal @ Sushil Sahu) who has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, for grant of bail in the present case being aggrieved with the order dated 22.07.2024 passed in MCRC No. 4 2810/2024 which was rejected by this Court, and he preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 818/2025 [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.1314/2025] arising out of the said order dated 22.07.2024 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail to him vide order dated 18.02.2025 on the following conditions: “ 22. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein, the total amount involved in the alleged scam is approximately Rs.4/- Crore but he attributes about Rs.35 lakh to the appellant herein. 23. For the purpose of bail and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the appellant herein to deposit an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- lakh with the Trial Court within period of six months from today. 24. We are conscious of the fact that we have been condemning the High Courts when they impose such conditions. But here is a case wherein we are compelled to impose such conditions having regard to the peculiar facts of this case. 25. We make it clear that within the time period of 6 months, if the amount is not deposited by the appellant, this bail shall stand automatically cancelled.” Thereafter, the present petitioner moved an application for grant of bail before the learned trial Court, and claimed bail on the basis of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Subelal @ Sushil Sahu vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, and In persuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned trial Court granted bail to the petitioner on the following conditions: 5 " शኔ᭖(cid:3) - 1. कु मार साहू 35 आदेश दिदनांक 03.03.2025 लाख रूपये इस/ से छः माह के भीኔ᭖र आरोपी अजय दि(cid:31)चारण न्यायालय में जमा करेगा । यदिद आरोपी अजय कु मार साहू उ्ሹ अ(cid:31)धि) में 35 2. लाख रूपये का रकम जमा नहीं करኔ᭖ा है ኔ᭖ो उसका जमानኔ᭖ स्(cid:31)मे(cid:31) दिनरस्ኔ᭖ हो जा(cid:31)ेगा। 3. अभिभयु्ሹ ्ቚत्येक पेशी में उपቝኌस्1ኔ᭖ होगा । अभिभयु्ሹ साቌኚयों को ्ቚत्य्ቌ या अ्ቚत्य्ቌ रूप से साधि्ቌयों को 4. ्ቚभादि(cid:31)ኔ᭖ नहीं करेगा । ्ቚकरण (cid:31)ास्ኔ᭖े जमानኔ᭖ ्ቚस्ኔ᭖ुधिኔ᭖/ पू(cid:31)5(cid:31)ኔ᭖ दिदनांक 11.03.2025.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of Section 437(6) the CrPC, the trial could not be completed before the Magistrate within a period of sixty days, and the petitioner is entitled for getting benefit under Section 437(6) of the CrPC, but in spite of the said fact the aforesaid condition has been laid down by the learned trial Court. He further submits that after this the petitioner had moved an application for modification of the said order by waiving off the condition No.1 and 2 laid down by the trial Court, and the same was rejected vide order dated 25.04.2025 against which a revision was filed by the petitioner before the revisional Court, and the same was rejected vide order dated 07.07.2025, hence, the present CRMP challenging both the orders. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court and the revisional Court has failed to appreciate that that the benefit of the statutory provision under Section 437(6) granted to the petitioner will be rendered redundant in case he fails to deposit Rs. 35 lakhs 6 coupled with the fact that the trial had not commenced even after expiry of 60 days. 6. Learned State counsel opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 262/2025 by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, District – Raipur (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 25.04.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 813/2024 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Raipur (C.G.), whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned revisional Court, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the judgments/orders of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the order of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it transpires that the petitioner was granted bail by the trial Court in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court granting bail to the co-accused, in the case of Subelal @ Sushil Sahu vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, vide order dated 18.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 818/2025 [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) 7 No.1314/2025] on the same terms and conditions, as there was no other option to the trial Court as well as the revisional Court to the take a different view when the bail was prayed by the applicant claiming parity with the order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of said co-accused, hence, I do not find any good ground for interference in the present case, for quashing of the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 262/2025 passed by the revisional Court, as well as the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the trial Court in Criminal Case No. 813/2024 by learned JMFC, District – Raipur (C.G.), as there is no illegality and infirmity in both the impugned orders. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 528 of BNSS being devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar