2024 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 11741
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Shri Ramesh Sinha, CJ
HARADHAN MANDAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
MCRCA/1471/2024
Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. UKS Chandel, Dy. Advocate General
Anticipatory bail was denied due to serious allegations of fraud, considering the applicant's prior criminal history and the nature of the offense under IPC Section 420.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420 - Anticipatory bail application - Allegations of fraud in tender procurement for government projects - The applicant claimed innocence, asserting no direct involvement in the alleged crime, which involved misrepresentation of contract terms and payment demands. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court emphasized that the applicant's prior criminal history and the nature of allegations warranted denial of bail, as the applicant's actions led to substantial financial loss to the complainant. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The applicant faced allegations of fraud after convincing the complainant to pay substantial sums for a purported government project tender, which turned out to be misrepresented.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's involvement in the alleged fraud was substantial, given the multiple payments made by the complainant and the nature of the contract.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the applicant could be granted anticipatory bail in light of serious fraud allegations and prior criminal cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's previous criminal cases and the evidence of fraud against him justified the denial of anticipatory bail, indicating a risk of flight and potential tampering with evidence.
Result: Anticipatory bail application rejected.
Order On Board
20.12.2024
1. The applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 94/2024, registered at Police Station – Mohala, District – Mohala Manpur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. As per the prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant Jagguram Sori resident of Village and Post Mohala District Mohala Manpur Ambagarh has lodged a written complaint against the applicant that the complainant met with the applicant through his friend namely Kishor Dhakre (Mohala) in the Pensioner Building and the applicant told about the opportunity and the applicant also told that he is working in Bhilai Steel Plant as a Regular Employee and also that he owns a NGO Namely New Bright Future Welfare Development organization and shown the Paper cuttings, Certificate, Files and photograph and told that that after seeing the work of the applicant in the NGO he has been given many government projects by the central government and also told about the Health Survey work which is currently with him, and also that he is selling the tenders of health Survey of every district of Chhattisgarh and also that for obtaining tender of one district anyone has to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the survey will be for Rs. 40,000/- person of every district and for 1 survey they will pay Rs. 120/- and a total of Rs. 48,00,000/- will be given and also told that the person obtaining the tender would be given work order training and the company will provide necessary NOCs from the government and if the company fails to give all the necessary things within 10 days then the said amount would be returned and in the month of February the applicant called the complainant that he is coming to District Mohala and the meeting was done in the house of Ashish Sinha and the complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- to the applicant in cash in front of Kishor Dhakre and Bhaskar Sahu and then paid a sum of Rs 70,000/- and again paid Rs. 30,000/- to the applicant and then the applicant called the complainant to his house situated at Bhilai and asked to sign on a plain paper and when the complainant received the work order and the contract he got suspicious about the work as the work order was issued by the RPOTS Pvt. Ltd. Noida (U.P) and then the complainant got furious and told him that I paid the money for the Government Project and the paper is from private company and asked to return the money thereafter the applicant refused to pay the money and told that if you will not work then you will have to pay a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- and after that the complainant has lodged a written report against the applicant and the aforesaid crime has been committed. Hence, this application.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is completely innocent and further submitted that the applicant is neither beneficiary nor has anything to do with the case as the Contract was executed between the complainant and the Company and the applicant has no any role in this crime, the applicant only helped the complainant to transfer the tender fees to the company and the applicant has transferred all the amount to the company. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that, it transpires that there are 4 criminal cases registered against the applicant out of which in 1 case the applicant has been granted bail by the trial Court and other cases are pending. Further the fact that the complainant met with the applicant through his friend namely Kishor Dhakre (Mohala) in the Pensioner Building and the applicant told about the opportunity and the applicant also told that he is working in Bhilai Steel Plant as a Regular Emp