1 - Ashok Kummar Manikpuri S/o Late Ramjee Manikpuri Aged About 45 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Ajak Thana Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8753 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2275 of 2024 1 - Ashok Kummar Manikpuri S/o Late Ramjee Manikpuri Aged About 45 Years R/o Pachree Ghat, Juna Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Ajak Thana Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For appellant :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate For objector : Ms. Prarthana Khandelwal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board 18.02.2025. 1. The present criminal appeal is preferred under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 23.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Atrocities) Act, Bilaspur in Crime No. 4/2024 whereby the regular bail application of the applicant has been dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2024. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 09-08-2024 the complainant lodged a written complaint against the present appellants with the allegation that the appellants have cheated the complainant and taken Rs. 7,00,000/- on the pretext of providing employment to them, but they have not provided them the government employment. Now, they have not returning their amount. When they demanded their amount back on 19-06-2024 they abused them in the name of their caste which was witnessed by the witnesses and threatened them. On the report of the complainant the FIR for offence under Section 420, 294, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act) has been registered on 10-08-2024 by AJAK police Bilaspur in which the appellant has been arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. There is simple money dispute between the parties for which the wife of the appellant has made a complaint on 19.06.2024 to the City Kotwali, Bilapur but the Police has given an intimation of non-cognizable offence under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. on 19.06.2024. The complaint dated 19.06.2024 is much prior to the lodging of the present FIR against the present appellant in which the dispute with respect to money transaction have been disclosed. He would also submit that the present complianant had earlier made her complaint on 15.05.2024 to AJAK Police, Bilaspur, in which after inquiry, closure report was forwarded by the investigating officer and the general money transaction dispute was found between the parties. During the inquiry, the statement of the complainant was recorded on 23.06.2024 in which also she has not alleged that the present appellant has cheated her or they have taken the money from them towards allurement to provide government job to them. He would further submit that presently, the appellant and the complainants have entered into compromise and the appellant is ready to repay the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and out of which Rs. 2,00,000/- have been already been paid to the complainants on 13.02.2025 and the 3 remaining amount would be paid within the outer limit of one year from today for that an agreement has also been executed between the parties on 13.02.2025 which is annexed in the present bail application along with covering memo dated 17.02.2025. He would further submit that in support of agreement between the parties, the affidavits of the complainants Smt. Kiran Rai and Smt. Maya Sharma has also been annexed. He would further submit that the offence are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class except the offence under the SC/ ST Act. He would also submit that the appellant is in jail since 06/11/2024, charge-sheet has been filed and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and has submitted that there are sufficient material against the appellant that he cheated the complainants and obtained money from them on the pretext of providing government job to them. Although, from the affidavits filed by the complainants appears that they have entered into compromise and the appellant is ready to repay the amount but that itself cannot be made ground on releasing the appellant on bail. He would also submit that there are two criminal antecedents of the present appellant, out of which one case is between the same party for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, considering the nature of allegation and the material available in the charge-sheet, the appellant is not entitled for bail. 5. The complaints Smt. Kiran Rai and another victim Smt. Maya Sharma appeared in person before this Court and verified the affidavits filed by them and admitted that they have entered into compromise with the appellant and now they does not have any objection if the appellant is released on bail. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and the material collected during the investigation, particularly considering that the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute and out of which Rs. 2 lakh has already 4 been paid to the complainants by the appellant and there was an undertaking for repayment of remaining amount within one year from the date of execution of the compromise deed dated 13.02.2025, further considering that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed, further considering that the trial of the case will take its own time, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail.
Decision
7. Therefore the present appeal filed by the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.11.2024 is set aside. 8. It is directed that the appellant Ashok Kumar Manikpuri shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, on following conditions:- (i) He Shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the concerned trial Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.02.21 17:56:22 +0530