Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Post S.299 CrPC Charge Sheet & S.82 CrPC Notice, If Not Declared 'Proclaimed Offender' Under S.82(4): Rajasthan High Court - 2025-03-12

Rajasthan High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail, Clarifies Stance on Post-Charge Sheet & S.82 CrPC Notice Applications

Jaipur , Rajasthan – The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in a significant order, has granted anticipatory bail to Nawal Kishore Dangayach, emphasizing that an application for pre-arrest bail remains maintainable even after a charge sheet has been filed under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and a proclamation notice under Section 82 CrPC has been issued, provided the accused has not yet been declared a 'proclaimed offender' under Section 82(4) CrPC. The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma ShankerVyas on March 12, 2025.

Case Background

The petitioner, Nawal Kishore Dangayach, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 144/2023 registered at Police Station Kaladera, District Jaipur Rural. The charges involved Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

The complainant, Krishnakumar Yadav, alleged that he had booked a flat (No. 108) in a residential project, "Iconic Residency," being developed by A-Gangwal Real Estate LLP. He claimed to have paid a total of Rs. 1 crore on different dates as an advance against a total consideration of Rs. 2,52,52,990. The project was supposed to be completed in five years, but upon inspection, only a pit was found with no construction activity. Subsequently, a cheque for Rs. 1 crore, allegedly issued by the company on April 5, 2023, for refund, was dishonored.

During the investigation, police concluded that the petitioner was evading appearance. A charge sheet was filed against him under Section 299 CrPC, and on December 16, 2024, the trial court issued a proclamation notice under Section 82 CrPC and a non-bailable arrest warrant.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Contentions (Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, Adv.): * The petitioner is innocent, and the allegations are false. * The complainant's claim of paying Rs. 1 crore in cash in 2016 at the age of 19, without any disclosed source of income at the time (first taxable income in 2019 as per his S.161 CrPC statement), is highly doubtful. No specific dates of payment or original receipts were provided. * The petitioner was merely an investor in the LLP, and the day-to-day affairs were managed by another partner, Shankar Khandelwal , who allegedly misused blank cheques signed by the petitioner. * The petitioner had retired from the LLP on October 25, 2016, a fact recorded on the relevant government ministry's website. * Shankar Khandelwal faced CBI inquiries for financial irregularities. * The land for the project was auctioned by RIICO in 2020 due to loan default by the firm. The firm also entered insolvency proceedings in 2021, and the complainant never filed a claim for his alleged dues. * The dispute is primarily civil in nature. * The petitioner has not been declared a 'proclaimed offender' under Section 82(4) CrPC. * He had cooperated with the investigation on multiple occasions. * Anticipatory bail is maintainable even after the filing of a charge sheet or issuance of a Section 82 CrPC notice.

Respondent's Contentions (Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP, and Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. for Complainant): * The petitioner's defense is a matter for trial. * The allegations are serious. * Anticipatory bail should not be granted when a charge sheet has been filed and the accused is absconding, except in exceptional circumstances. * The petitioner has a criminal record.

Legal Principles and Precedents Discussed

The Court extensively analyzed the legal position regarding the maintainability of anticipatory bail applications in such circumstances.

For the Respondent: Reliance was placed on Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730 , which states that normally, an absconding accused declared a proclaimed offender is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

For the Petitioner (and considered by the Court):

Asha Dubey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 889 : Held that a declaration under Section 82 CrPC does not create a total embargo on considering anticipatory bail, and the court must assess the circumstances, nature of the offense, and liberty of the appellant.

Ravindra Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan (2010) 1 SCC 684 : Stated that anticipatory bail can be granted at any time before arrest, and the mere filing of a challan is not a bar.

Bharat Choudhary and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 77 : Clarified that there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail even after cognizance is taken or a charge-sheet is filed.

Sitaram vs State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 2823 and Harshvardhan Johari vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC Online Raj 2204 : Reinforced that an anticipatory bail application is maintainable if proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 CrPC have not attained finality, or if the accused has not been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82(4) CrPC, despite a charge sheet under S.299 CrPC and a S.82(1) notice.

The Court concluded that an application for anticipatory bail remains maintainable even after the filing of a charge sheet under Section 299 CrPC, cognizance by the court, issuance of an arrest warrant, or a notice under Section 82 CrPC, as long as the accused has not been declared a 'proclaimed offender' under Section 82(4) CrPC. The court is competent to consider such an application on its merits.

Court's Reasoning on Merits and Decision

After establishing the maintainability of the application, Justice Vyas considered the facts of the case:

Doubts were cast on the complainant's claim of paying Rs. 1 crore in cash given his age and lack of income at the alleged time, and the absence of concrete proof of payment.

The petitioner had retired from the LLP in 2016.

The project land was auctioned, and the firm faced insolvency, yet the complainant did not pursue his claim in those proceedings.

The petitioner's defense regarding misuse of cheques by Shankar Khandelwal , who allegedly had other individuals file similar complaints, could not be dismissed outright at this stage.

The petitioner had appeared for investigation on multiple occasions.

Similar cases against the petitioner had either interim protection or bail granted.

Prima facie, the element of forgery by the petitioner was not evident.

The dispute bore hallmarks of a civil nature.

With the charge sheet filed, custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary.

The original receipts for the alleged Rs. 1 crore payment were not seized during the investigation.

Considering the overall circumstances, without commenting on the final merits of the case, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application.

The Court ordered that if the petitioner, Nawal Kishore Dangayach, appears before the trial court by March 25, 2025, and furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court, for his regular appearance and on the condition that he will not leave India without prior permission of the court, he shall be released on bail. The petitioner is not to be arrested in this case until March 25, 2025.

This judgment reiterates the nuanced approach courts must take in balancing the liberty of an individual with the interests of investigation and justice, particularly concerning anticipatory bail provisions.