Pintu Sonekar S/o Late Ramesh Sonekar Aged About 36 Years R/o Street No. Near v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station – Supela, Chowki Smriti Nagar District – Durg
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:43660 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6053 of 2025 Pintu Sonekar S/o Late Ramesh Sonekar Aged About 36 Years R/o Street No. Near Ravidas Mandir, Ramnagar Pandharabodi , Nagpur Maharashtra, Pin- 441203 --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station – Supela, Chowki Smriti Nagar District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent Along with MCRC No. 6327 of 2025 Pintu Sonekar S/o Late Ramesh Sonekar Aged About 36 Years R/o Street No. 1, Near Ravidas Mandir Ramnagar, Pandharabodi, Nagpur Maharashtra. Pin - 441203 ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Basantpur, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.08.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime Nos. 510/2025 and 218/2025, registered at Police Station – Supela, Chowki Smriti Nagar District – Durg (C.G.) and Police Station – Basantpur, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution in MCRC No.6053/2025, is that complainant 2 Smt. Sushma Singh Lodged a written complaint to the Police authorities on 04.05.2025 stating that She and her husband Surendra Singh went to Surya Tresure Island Mall Situated at Junwani in the month of December 2023 and visited the ofÏce of Desire Taj Vacations, where present applicant was present and other staff namely Sushil Yadav and Dipesh Singhele told about the vacation scheme and told them that if they take a 10 years membership package then they will get a plot of 1000 Sq. Ft. or one gold coin and goa tour. After being ssured on 28.12.2023 an agreement was made and it is alleged that they on different dates have paid an amount totaling to Rs. 4 Lakhs and after waiting for six months when they went to ofÏce it was informed that the ofÏce is closed and they went somewhere else. The complainant upon enquiry further came to know that other persons have also given money and have been duped totaling to Rs. 7, 55, 000/- That the police authorities after receiving the complaint have registered FIR under the above-mentioned sections and the present applicant was arrested by the police authorities on 19.05.2025 and sent him to judicial custody. 3. The case of the prosecution in MCRC No.6327/2025, is that complainant Ramesh Kumar Vaishnav made a written complaint to the Police authorities on 25.05.2025 stating that on 13.08.2022 he received a call from one person stating that he has won coupon and he has to come to Third Floor, Rishab Tower, Near Bhadoriya Chowk, Rajnandgaon where the ofÏce is situated to collect gift and also stated that he is the director of Desire Taj Vacations. Victim upon reaching the ofÏce received a dinner set and a vacation package of three years was explained to him for which he was asked to deposit Rs. 99,500/-On being satisfied he deposited 51,000/- and later on 13.10.2022 given cash of Rs 40,000/- and it was stated that he would be given the benefit of package as soon he plans for vacation. When the complainant reached the ofÏce after 3 almost a year it was informed that the company has been closed and upon calling the number was switched off. Therefore, the complainant has been duped by the Desire Taj Vacations to the tune of Rs. 91,000/-. That the police authorities after receiving the complaint have registered FIR under the above-mentioned section and the present applicant was arrested formally by the authorities as he was already in jail in other crime number at Durg Jail and sent him to judicial custody. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further stated that earlier two cases were registered against the applicant in which the applicant had moved an anticipatory bail application which was rejected by this Court on 06.11.2024 in MCRCA No.1222/2025, against which the applicant preferred an SLP (Crl.) No. 17063/2024, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court granted him anticipatory bail, and the copy of the order is annexed with the bail application in page No.34, and thereafter, the applicant had also been granted anticipatory bail in case Crime No. 977/2024, vide order dated 09.01.2025 passed in MCRCA No.23/2025, and thereafter, the present two cases have been registered against him by the different complainants. It is further submitted that the charge- sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 19.05.2025 and 09.06.2025, and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there two other case registered against the applicant besides these two cases, and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that as per the FIR the applicant is said to have cheated the complainants Smt. Sushma Singh and Ramesh 6. 7. 4 Kumar Vaishnav, which caused them a loss to the tune of Rs. 7,55,000/- and Rs. 91,000/-, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that earlier two cases were registered against the applicant in which the applicant had moved an anticipatory bail application which was rejected by this Court on 06.11.2024 in MCRCA No.1222/2025, against which the applicant preferred an SLP (Crl.) No. 17063/2024, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court granted him anticipatory bail, and the copy of the order is annexed with the bail application in page No.34, and thereafter, the applicant had also been granted anticipatory bail in case Crime No. 977/2024, vide order dated 09.01.2025 passed in MCRCA No.23/2025, and thereafter, the present two cases have been registered against him by the different complainants, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 19.05.2025 and 09.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 8. Let applicant, Pintu Sonekar, involved in Crime Nos. 510/2025 and 218/2025, registered at Police Station – Supela, Chowki Smriti Nagar District – Durg (C.G.) and Police Station – Basantpur, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 5 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 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. Rajshekhar Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice