Chattisgarh High Court
Vijay Kumar Dheer vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 January, 2024
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:839
Page 1 of 17
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1445 of 2023
Reserved on : 21.12.2023
Delivered on : 09.01.2024
Vijay Kumar Dheer, S/o Late Shri Satya Prakash Dheer, Aged About 79
Years, R/o Village Kot Ise Khan, Post And Police Station Kot Ise Khan
(Dharamkot), District Moga (Punjab)
--- Applicant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Officer In Charge Of Police
Station Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Advocate.
For Objector : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV ORDER
1. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of anticipatory bail, who has apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 107/2016, registered at Police Station- Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472 & 120B of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.04.2016 on behalf of Managing Director of the Gyan Ganga Education Society (for short "the Society"), one T.R. Dewangan has lodged Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 2 of 17 a complaint contending that the Society was established in the year 1991 and Late Laxmi Narayan Shandilya was the Chairman, Shri V.K. Shandilya was Managing Director and Smt. Suman Dheer was Director from 1992 to 1998. On 06.06.1996, V.K. Shandilya expired and after his death, Sachin Shandilya became Managing Director of the Society. It is also case of the prosecution that Balraj Kumar Dheer along with his son Sarvesh Dheer, Sumar Dheer and Vijay Kumar Dheer started creating pressure in the Society and after death of V.K. Shandilya, these persons along with Raj Kumari Kanda executed two forged agreements in which one was signed and other one was without signature. It has also been alleged that one L.C. Lodhi who was relative of Balraj Dheer has signed in one copy which was dated 07.01.1991 and on the basis of agreement, they have claimed before the Court that as per this agreement, the company has four directors, in which, names and signatures of Raj Kumari Kanda, Suman Dheer, V.K. Shandilya and Ravindra Pal Singh are there. The witnesses have also signed but no date has been mentioned. On the basis of this agreement, Sarvesh Dheer was projected as Managing Director and in the Court statement, Balraj Dheer has informed that agreement was prepared in his house at Indrawati Colony, MIG-90 in front of him by Suman Dheer, Raj Kumari Kanda, V.K. Shandilya and Ravindra Pal Singh. In one copy of the agreement, the relative of Balraj Dheer has signed and the date has been marked as 07.09.1991. On that day, it has been stated that Balraj Dheer was present at the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 3 of 17 place of occurrence whereas he was posted as Executive Engineer in Badsagar Project, Riwa, Madhya Pradesh. It is also case of the prosecution that after verifying, it was revealed that the accused Balraj Kumar Dheer was posted at Riwa and was present in his duty, which clearly establishes that the agreement is forged and fabricated. Balraj Kumar Dheer was arrested on 17.01.2018 for conspiracy his son- Sarvesh Dheer to become Director. Later on he has been released on bail. It is also case of the prosecution that Balraj Kumar Dheer has filed writ petition, wherein stay order was passed stating that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. It is also case of the prosecution that Sarvesh Dheer and Vijay Dheer were granted anticipatory bail, but they have not submitted bail and during investigation, Raj Kumar Kanda expired. The prosecution has issued notice under Section 91 to Balraj Kumar Dheer and Sarvesh Dheer to submit forged original agreement, but it has been informed by them that the said original agreement is submitted before the District Court in Case No. 9A/2012, now the First Appeal No. 41A/2017 is pending before the High Court. It is also case of the prosecution that the prosecution has obtained certified copy and has produced the same in the charge-sheet. The prosecution has also seized agreement which was signed by the witnesses.
3. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, the offence as aforestated has been registered against the present applicant.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 4 of 17
4. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant would submit that no ingredients of offence of which the applicant is facing criminal trial, is made out, as such, consequential criminal proceeding pending before the learned JMFC, Raipur vide Criminal Case No. 15637/2023 is nothing but an abuse of process of law, as such, the applicant is entitled to get anticipatory bail. He would further submit that the applicant is neither the author of the documents nor has forged it. In fact, the company "Gyan Ganga Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd." had been registered with the registrar of the company, on the basis of the agreement dated 07.09.1991. He would further submit that the Police authority has no jurisdiction to investigate the case in view of Section 195 and 340 of the Cr.P.C. because of allegation levelled against the petitioners that they have used false agreement and statement before the learned Court during judicial proceeding/ trial. He would also submit that civil suit, appeal, complaint case etc. are pending before the learned District Court and this Court between the petitioners and Gyan Ganga Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd. The informer/complainant, namely, T.R. Dewangan is attesting witness of the agreement and after passing 25 years or during proceeding of the civil suit and complaint case, the agreement has not been questioned by the founder members of the company. Thereafter, on the basis of the said agreement the Civil Suit No. 9A/2012 filed by the applicant has been dismissed, on the ground that the dispute can be resolved before the Arbitrator and an appeal against dismissal of suit is pending Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 5 of 17 before this Court. He would further submit that the Society and Sachin Shandilya have filed C.R. No. 29/2016 before this Court against the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the learned trial Court. The said revision has been filed on the basis of agreement dated 07.09.1991 by stating that the suit is not maintainable as per Section 10 of the Companies Act and Arbitration & Conciliation Act. He would also submit that as per FIR, it has been mentioned that Sachin Shandilya has been discharged by the learned Second Additional Session Judge, Raipur on 31.12.2012. Sarvesh Dheer preferred revision bearing CRR No. 105/2013 before this Court against the order dated 31.12.2012. On 19.09.2013, this Court had passed the order, whereby the order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the learned Second Additional Session Judge, Raipur was set aside and order dated 17.04.2012 passed by learned JMFC, Raipur is restored. Thereafter, Smt. Manju Shandilya and another had filed SLP(Cri.) No. 8570/2013 against the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by this Court in CRR No. 105/2013. On 07.05.2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the order dated 19.09.2013 and matter is remitted back to this Court for passing appropriate order after considering the submission of the counsel afresh. CRR No. 105/2013 is pending before this Court for kind consideration. The complainant has concealed the true facts at the time of lodging the complaint.
5. He would also submit that the applicant has taken expert opinion on questioned signatures of Shri Upendra Kumar Shandilya and Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 6 of 17 Shri Ravindra Pal Singh on agreement at Raipur without date. On 18.09.2009, Dr. (Ku.) Sunanda Dhenge M.Sc., Ph.D. (Forensic Science) Handwriting - Finger Print Expert has given her opinion that the agreement without date and with date is not a forged and fabricated document and has been executed by four members and signatures in the agreement and signature of the official documents are similar. He would also submit that on 17.03.2016, Suman Dheer has made complaint before respondent No. 1 with documentary evidence and mentioned the details of the incident and nature of offence has been committed by the responsible person, but the Police has not registered the FIR against the persons who have filed forged, false and fabricated document before this Court in Company Petition No. 6/2003. Thereafter, Suman Dheer filed a writ petition, bearing WPCR No. 130/2016 before this Court for registration of FIR, in which, the State has filed reply and recorded the statement of proposed accused and denied for registration of FIR that many cases are pending between them. He would further submit that on 15.02.2016, Sachin Shandilya has filed writ petition i.e. WPCR No. 36/2016 before this Court for issue writ directing the respondent to lodge FIR. The complainant-Mr. T.R. Dewangan, who is attesting witness of agreement, has lodge complaint before the respondent during pendency of WPCR No. 36/2016 on the same facts and same documents. Thereafter, the police has registered the questioned FIR/Crime No. 107/2016 against the applicant and other persons for offence punishable under Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 7 of 17 Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 and 120B of the IPC without conducting preliminary enquiry as per direction and guideline issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.
6. He would also submit that complainant-Mr. T.R. Dewangan and Sachin Shandilya had filed writ petition i.e. WPCR No. 270/2018 before this Court to issue writ directing the State to complete investigation within a reasonable period as required under Section 173(1) of the Cr.P.C. The WPCR No. 270/2018 was not filed in clean hand and concealed the true facts before this Court. The FIR has been registered on the basis of facts of Court proceeding and the Police authority has no power to interfere or investigate the case with respect Court's proceedings/ orders. The petitioners were not made party in the said writ petition. He also contended that the applicant and other accused have filed Review Petition No. 65/2018 before this Court to recall/modify the order dated 08.05.2018 passed in WPCR No. 270/2018 on the ground that complainant has statutory remedy under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the said remedy has not been exhausted, hence, the WPCR No. 270/2018 is not maintainable. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained where the petitioner has alternative remedy which provides an equally efficacious remedy. The Police authority has no jurisdiction to investigate the case in view of Sections 195 and 340 of the Cr.P.C. because of allegation levelled against the petitioners that they have used false agreement and statement Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 8 of 17 before the learned Court during judicial proceeding/ trial. The petitioners had not been made as party in WPCR No. 270/2018 and they are necessary party and no opportunity of hearing has been provided prior to passing of the order dated 08.05.2018 and their rights have been highly violated, which is not permissible and sustainable under the eyes of law and fair justice delivery system.
7. He would also submit that one of the accused was arrested by the respondent on 17.07.2018 when he went to Jabalpur, thereafter, he was released on bail vide order dated 13.08.2018 passed by this Court in MCRC No. 5435/2018. He would also submit that the accused have filed company petition vide No. 109/2013 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai against M/s Gyan Ganga Educational Institute, Sachin Shandilya and others for acts of oppression, mismanagement, fraud, manipulation and falsification of statutory and other records. The said petition was dismissed on 06.11.2017. Thereafter, they filed appeal before the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'NCLAT') under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against the judgment dated 06.11.2017 vide Company Appeal (AT) No. 44/2018. On 20.08.2019, the Hon'ble NCLAT, New Delhi passed judgment by upholding the order of Company Law Board and ordered that the respondents (of that appeal) will pay the appellants their balance of unsecured loan with interest etc. by consideration the agreement dated 07.09.1991 (which is alleged Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 9 of 17 forged in the present crime).
8. He would also submit that the applicant and other accused have filed Contempt Case (AT) No. 27/2020 before the Hon'ble NCLAT to punish the contemnors for breach and willful disobedient of the final judgment dated 20.08.2019. The said petition was decided on 26.11.2021 and as per para 11 of the said judgment, it is held that there is no dispute between the parties that as per the agreement dated 07.09.1991 on the unsecured loan of the applicants, the complainant was to make payment @ 155 annually compounded.
9. He would submit that the applicant has filed writ petitions, bearing WPCR Nos. 167/2016 and 227/2016 before this Court for quashment of FIR registered by Police Station- Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur vide Crime No. 107/2016 against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 and 120B of the IPC. On 29.09.2016, the respondent/State has filed reply in the WPCR No. 167/2016 and submitted that the answering respondents are trying to their best level to investigate the matter in fair and impartial manner and they are duty bound to investigate matter after collecting the documentary evidence i.e. original agreement executed in the year 1991 because it would be required to answering respondents to send the same to its examination from State examiner of questioned document after collecting the specific signature of the author. The Police has not collected the original documents till date and filed charge-sheet and also arrested the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 10 of 17 other co-accused without any evidence. He would further submit that on 22.08.2016, the WPCR No. 167/2016 was listed before this Court and this Court was pleased to issue notice to the respondents. On 06.08.2018, this Court had directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, interim protection was extended till final disposal of the case. On 16.06.2023, this Court has decided the case finally and directed the investigating agency to conclude the investigation within a period of six weeks from today, if there is no legal impediment and submit a Police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the competent Court in accordance with law. The interim order dated 06.08.2016 passed in favour of the petitioner shall continue subject to conclusion of the investigation. He would further submit that applicant along with other co-accused have made representation on different date along with copy of order dated 16.06.2023 and order dated 26.11.2021 passed by Hon'ble NCLCT, Delhi before the Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home Affairs, DGP of Chhattisgarh, DIG, Raipur, SSP and Senior SP, Raipur and the Police Thana, Vidhan Sabha Bhawan, Raipur. The applicant and other co-accused have mentioned the details grounds and litigation which is pending between the applicant and the objector and also mentioned the legal grounds that the prosecution cannot prosecute the petitioners due to lack of jurisdiction, which has not been considered any reasons.
10. He would further submit that the statement of Balraj Dheer has Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 11 of 17 been recorded prior to framing of charges. The other co-accused has been lengthily cross-examined by the objector about 8 years continuously (from 26.10.2004 to 04.01.2012). The conduct of the objector comes under the definition of mental and physical torture and harassment. He would also submit that the Police has not followed the direction of this Court dated 16.06.2023 and filed charge-sheet after six weeks i.e. on 20.09.2023. The Police issued notice to the petitioners, thereafter, the applicant has given reply that the original document of agreement has been filed before the learned Civil Court in Civil Case No. 9A/2012. The seizure memo has been prepared on 12.07.2018 from T.R. Dewangan who has died and the seizure memo has been prepared on 18.08.2023 from the objector after prescribed time by this Court in WPCR No. 167/2016 order dated 16.06.2023 and the Police has not seized original document of agreement dated 07.09.1991. He would further submit that on 13.05.2023, the Police has issued notice to the objector to produce the original document of agreement dated 07.09.1991. The objector has given answer that copy of original agreement is not available and the same was produced by the applicants and other co- accused in the complaint case. The Police has recorded the statement of 03 witnesses, namely, T.R. Dewangan, Sachin Shandilya and Ravindra Pal Singh. Mr. T.R. Dewangan has died. As per statement of Sachin Shandilya, no essential ingredient of alleged offence is prima facie made out. He would also submit that as per statement of Ravindra Pal Singh, the alleged Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 12 of 17 agreement dated 07.09.1991 is not forged agreement and he clearly stated that the agreement has been executed between Smt. Suman Dheer, Smt. Rajkumari Kanda (who has died), Upendra Kumar Shandilya (who has died) and Ravindra Pal Singh (witness) and D.K. God and T.R. Dewangan (informer/complaint, now who has died). He has clearly stated that a copy of agreement has been prepared at Raipur and Smt. Rajkumari Kanda has filed the said agreement before this Court and Tribunal. The statement of prosecution witness Ravindra Pal Singh has been ignored by the prosecution and filed charge- sheet against the applicant and other co-accused without any legal evidence.
11. He would also submit that Smt. Suman Dheer was Director of the Society, who has been removed from her directorship by forged Annual General Meeting dated 25.09.1998 and the objector has been appointed as Managing Director by preparing false and forged documents i.e. Annual General Meeting dated 01.06.1996 and 11.06.1996. The State House Officer, mechanically without application of mind as to commission of any cognizable offence, registered an FIR by abusing his power, therefore, he would pray for releasing the applicant on bail.
12. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant to substantiate his submission, has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj & another, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581, Hemant Dhasmana Vs. Central Bureau of Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 13 of 17 Investigation & another, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 536, Gopalakrishna Menon & Another vs. D. Raja Reddy & Another, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 240 and the judgment passed by this Court in case of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another (CRMP No. 424 of 2018, decided on 15.02.2022).
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the objector would submit that from the basis of charge-sheet submitted by the police, prima facie involvement of the applicant is reflected as the applicant is perpetrator of crime that led to lodging FIR. He would further submit that the applicant is not charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Sections 195 or 340 of the Cr.P.C. but he has been charged for committing the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 & 120B of IPC, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that the police has no jurisdiction to investigate or to lodge FIR is incorrect submission of fact and deserves to be rejected.
14. Learned State counsel would submit that on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, FIR has been registered and during investigation, the police has issued notice to the present applicant to submit original agreement but he has not produced the same. The involvement of the applicant is prima facie reflected, therefore, the bail application may kindly be rejected.
15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 14 of 17
16. The submission made by learned senior counsel for the applicant that various litigations are pending before the various Courts, which does not rescue him from facing the trial for committing conspiracy to commit offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472 & 120B of IPC. The litigation between the applicant and the complainant is arising because of the alleged forged agreement and the said alleged forged agreement was prepared with the connivance of all other accused namely Balraj Dheer, Smt. Suman Dheer, Raj Kumari Kanda, wherein the present applicant was also involved in the conspiracy, therefore, he has been arrayed as accused in view of Section 120B of IPC. From bare perusal of the FIR, ingredients of Section 420 IPC i.e. cheating and dishonestly is prima facie reflected as it has been alleged that the said agreement has been executed to gain undue advantage and caused loss to the Gyan Ganga Educational Institution Pvt. Ltd.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ms. X Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in Criminal Appeal No. 822- 823/2023 decided on 17.03.2023 has examined the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail and in paragraph 11 to 13 it has held as under:-
"11. We propose to take a quick look at the considerations that ought to govern grant of anticipatory bail. There are a line of decisions of this court that have underscored the fact that while deciding an application for bail, the court ought to refrain from undertaking a detailed analysis of the evidence, the focus being on the prima-facie issues including consideration of some reasonable grounds that would go to show if the accused has committed the offence or those facts that would reflect on the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 15 of 17 seriousness of the offence.
The self imposed restraint on delving deep into the analysis of the evidence at that stage is for valid reasons, namely, to prevent any prejudice to the case set up by the prosecution or the defence likely to be taken by the accused and to keep all aspects of the matter open till the trial is concluded.
12. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar's case (supra), a DivisionBench of this Court had highlighted the factors that ought to be borne in mind while considering the anticipatory bail application and had stated that :-
"9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. [See State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, Prahlad Singh Bhat v. NCT, Delhi and Another and Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Others]".
13. In Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another, speaking for the Division Bench, Justice D.K. Jain observed that courts ought to refrain from mechanically granting bail and absence of relevant considerations will make such an order susceptible to interference. Para 13 of the said order is relevant and is reproduced herein below:-
"13. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 16 of 17 of having committed a serious offence. (See also State of Maharashtra v. Ritesh, Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra And Others, Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Others and Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad And Another)"
[Also refer : Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT Of Delhi) And Another and Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar Alias Polia And Another."
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Criminal Appeal No. 1793 of 2023 (Pratibha Manchanda Vs. State of Haryana) decided on 07.07.2023, has considered this issue for grant of anticipatory bail, particularly offence under Section 420 of IPC wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph 16 to 19 as under:-
"16. It goes without saying that the alleged offences of forging documents for transferring ownership of land worth crores of rupees are grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent upon us to analyze the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation.
17.In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, this Court carefully considered the principles established by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab2case. After a thorough deliberation, this court arrived at the following conclusion:
"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:
(i)The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv)The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail,particularly in cases Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:839 Page 17 of 17 of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
xxx xxx xxx
18. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Constitution Bench reaffirmed that when considering applications for anticipatory bail,courts should consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the specific facts of the case.
19.The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."
19. Considering the facts of the case, manner in which the alleged offence has been committed by the applicant, considering the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme in Pratibha Manchanda (supra) and also considering the material available in the case diary, prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of offence is reflected. Thus, there is sufficient material to record a finding that prima facie, offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
20. Accordingly, the bail application is liable to be and is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun