Chattisgarh High Court
Ramsanehi Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 November, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1306 of 2022
Ramsanehi Gupta, S/o Ramlakhan Gupta, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Village Chapda Police Station and Tahsil Odagi, District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Chowki Incharge Police Chowki
Latori, Police Station Jainagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Shri A. N. Pandey, Applicant
For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
15.11.2022
Heard.
1) The applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.229/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, registered at Police Chowki-Latori, Police Station- Jainagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.).
2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Pooja Rajwade, President of Union of Tejaswai Mahila Cluster, lodged a written complaint on 19.08.2022 to the effect that in cluster there are 28 women self help groups in the village-Latori. In the year 2019, the applicant was working on the post of PRP and he collected total Rs.2,42,100/- from most of the self help groups on the pretext of waiver of loan and sanction of loan to the self help groups between 11.03.2019 to 19.08.2022. On such complaint, police registered offence under Section 420 of IPC against the present applicant.
Page 2 of 33) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that some amount was handed over to him by the self help groups to deposit in their respective accounts but due to some personal problem he could not deposit the amount within time and a complaint was made in this regard by the self help groups before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Surajpur (CG). He further submits that an inquiry was conducted and report was submitted by the inquiry officer, wherein, it was held that the applicant has collected total Rs. 1,08,800/-. He further submits that applicant has already deposited Rs. 1,08,800/- & its receipts have been filed through covering memo on 15.11.2022. He further submits that the arrest of the applicant would affect his service career and he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant fraudulently collected Rs. 2,42,000/- from the 24 self help groups for waiver of loan and sanction of loan and as such, he cheated the self help groups. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6) From case diary, it appears that some amount was collected by the applicant from various self help groups in the year 2019. Whereas, the written complaint has been lodged on 19.08.2022, from the document filed by the counsel for the applicant through covering memo it is apparent that earlier one complaint was made and inquiry was held where applicant was directed to deposited Rs. 1,08,800/-. From notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Surajpur (C.G.), it is quit vivid that prior to 04.09.2022, it was found that applicant has taken money from only six self help groups. As the applicant has filed the receipt whereby he has deposited Rs. 1,08,800/- in the account of respective self help groups in the year 2019-20. It is apparent Page 3 of 3 from record that an inquiry has already been conducted on complaint of self help groups and amount has been deposited, as per the direction of the Superior Officers of the concerned department and thereafter, on the same subject matter registration of FIR after three years appears to be hand twisting trick. Considering the above aspect of the matter, I am inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed.
7) It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer, he shall be released on bail, on following conditions :-
(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court;
(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and
(d) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim