IMPORTANT POINT
The court denied bail due to the timely filing of the charge-sheet and the petitioner's non-cooperation in the investigation, emphasizing that default bail rights arise only after the statutory period lapses.

Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 420, and 403 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for alleged cheating and dishonoring of cheques - Previous bail applications pending without resolution - Court considers the nature of the case and the petitioner's conduct during investigation - Default bail not granted as charge-sheet filed within statutory period - Bail application rejected. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 15, 17)
(B) Default Bail - The right to default bail arises only after the statutory period of 60 days has lapsed from the date of arrest, and the charge-sheet must be acknowledged by the Magistrate. (Paras 12, 16)
(C) Parity in Bail - The principle of parity in bail applications requires similar circumstances between co-accused, which was not established in this case. (Paras 6, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with a case of alleged cheating involving significant sums of money deposited by the complainant for contract work that did not materialize. The petitioner had previously filed bail applications that remained unresolved.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the charge-sheet was filed within the statutory period and that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation, justifying the denial of bail.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail and whether the principle of parity applied in granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the charge-sheet was filed within the statutory period, and the petitioner's lack of cooperation during the investigation warranted the denial of bail.
Result: Bail application rejected.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. B K Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mary L Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mizoram through Video Conferencing.

2. On 30.10.2024, Court passed the following order:

“Heard Mr. B K Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner through V.C who submits that the petitioner by filing the instant application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 prays for enlargement on bail. He submits that the petitioner was arrested on 26.07.2024 in connection with C&EO P.S Case No. 1/2024 registered under Section 420/103 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The learned counsel submits that charge-sheet has already been filed by the Investigating Agency and the petitioner had also moved Bail Application No. 895/2024 on 01.08.2024 and as well as on 06.08.2024 under the same registration number. However, the outcome of the bail application is not known to the petitioner. Nevertheless, the petitioner in view of the settled law is not debarred from filing the instant bail application.

In view of above, issue notice of motion returnable by 07.11.2024. Ms. Mary L Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State and therefore, no formal notice is required. However, the petitioner shall furnish requisite extra copies of the bail application to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, if not already done. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor shall produce the scanned copy of the case record, which should also include a scanned copy of the charge-sheet by the next date.

List the matter again on 07.11.2024.”

3. Today, when the matter is listed again, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the outcome of the Bail Appln. No. 895/2024 filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl, Mizoram is still not known. Likewise, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that she has no information about the said bail application. She further submits that since the case record is quite bulky, she was only given a scanned copy of the chargesheet alongwith the statements of the complainant, the co-accused person and the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that there is no bar to consider the instant bail application even while another bail application is pending before the Lower Court in view of Kusha Duruka vs. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432, the instant bail application is taken up for consideration.

4. Brief facts of the case is that an FIR was lodged by the complainant on 31.01.2024 to the effect that based upon an agreement reached between the complainant, the petitioner and the co-accused person to secure certain road construction work, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in the account of the co-accused person but however, the road construction project did not materialize and was cancelled. Thereafter, the complainant was persuaded by the petitioner and the co-accused person to deposit an amount of Rs. 1.5 crores in the account of the petitioner to secure a contract work relating to Delhi Police Housing Project at Dheerpur, which was allegedly worth Rs. 200 crores. According to the complainant, she deposited the amount into the account of the petitioner in January, 2022 and the latter was supposed to return the capital alongwith the interest amounting to Rs. 3 crores by 25th March, 2022. However, the petitioner failed to honour the agreement and repaid only a sum of Rs. 33 lakhs in three sepatate installments in November, 2022. Further, when the complainant demanded payment of the balance amount, 2 (two) cheques amounting to Rs. 100 crores and 200 crores were issued to her by the petitioner, but the same bounced. As a result, she lodged an FIR and therefore, C&EO Police Station Case No. 1/2024 under Section 420/403 IPC and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 dated 31.01.2024 was registered. The petitioner was thereafter arrested

Click Here to Read the rest of this document