Default bail can be cancelled if the accused violates bail conditions or if new charges are added extending the investigation period.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

C.A.V. Order

1.The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 of the CRPC has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 26.10.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, in Crime No. 285 of 2023 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Priti Choudhari and Another), whereby the bail granted under Section 167(2) of the CRPC has been cancelled and the petitioners have taken into custody. The petitioners have prayed the following reliefs in their petition:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be kind enough to allow this petition, and quash/set aside the impugned order dated 26.10.2023 (State us. Priti Chaudhary and Anr.) passed by J.M.F.C. Raipur (C.G.), and further be pleased to direct the Court to grant default bail to the petitioners and any other relief which this Court deems fit in interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the accused persons in the offence of Crime No. 285 of 2023, registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur for the offences under Sections 420, 34, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Initially the FIR was registered for the offence under Section 420, 34 of IPC and during investigation the offence of Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was added. As per the FIR lodged by the complainant Devbrat Dubey (respondent No.2) lodged a report to the police with the allegation that the petitioner No.1 is the Director of Nirvana Home and Choudhari Developers and the petitioner No.2 is her sister. On 23.07.2022, the petitioner No.1 has entered into a contract for construction of a house over plot No. 549, area 2942 sqft including material and labour costs and total cost of work was Rs.36,50,000/- and up to 20.03.2023 he already paid Rs. 19,37,250/- in various installments for the work up to slab and lantern. Despite having advance paid to the petitioner No.1, she has not completed the work and he asked for refund of his amount, they did not refund the amount and misappropriated the same. The petitioner No.1 has transferred the entire amount from her bank account to the bank account of her mother and sister. She did the same act with various persons and the amount have not returned back to them also. Even they have not paid the material supplier and labour charges to the contractor and he made complaint that the petitioners have grabbed about Rs.50 Lakhs from him and other victims. On 19.08.2023, the FIR was registered against the accused persons.

3. On 20.08.2023, the petitioners have been arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, from where they have been sent to judicial custody. Vide 28.02.2023, their regular bail application have been rejected by the learned trial Court considering the nature of offence and the allegations leveled against the petitioners as well as the material available in the case diary against them. Repeatedly, the police has taken remand which was ultimately fixed for 26.10.2023 and judicial remand was granted by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur.

4. On 25.10.2023, an application for urgent hearing of the case was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which was taken into consideration and heard the case on the same day. At the same time, an application under Section 167(2) of CRPC has also been filed by the petitioner’s side stating therein that the petitioners have been arrested on 19.08.2023 and on the same day they have been produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who sent them on judicial custody on the same day, but the charge sheet has not been filed within 60 days. Since, the offence is punishable with imprisonment for 07 years from the period of completion of investigation provided as 60 days, but under the prescribed time limit, the charge sheet has not been filed and therefore, the petitioners may be released on bail.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court has allowed