Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12256 (CHH)

SUBRAT BHATTACHARYA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/1914/2025 · 2025-03-07

Shri Sachin Singh Rajput

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:11356 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1914 of 2025 1 - Subrat Bhattacharya S/o Late Bireshwar Bhattacharya Aged About 64 Years (Correct Name Of Applicant ) R/o F-19 South City 1 Gurugram Police Station Sector - 40 District - Gurugram (Haryana) Permanent Address - 72/1 Punjabi Bag Police Station Punjabi Bag Delhi West 2 - Gurmeet S/o Late Kulwant Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Dp- 9 Muarya Enclave Pritam Pura Police Station Maurya Enclave Delhi North West ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Surajpur District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Maya Chandra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ankur Kashyap, Dy.G.A. ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 07/03/2025 Heard. Admit. 2 As the case diary is available, the bail application is heard finally. 1. The applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No.96/2016 registered at Police Station – Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences under Section 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 10 of C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant – Ranmat Bai made a complaint that on the pretext of getting excess money, the Directors of the company called PACL company, in connivance with other accused persons, induced the depositors to deposit money. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants were not involved in day-to-day management of the company including financial affairs. It is also submitted that the other co-accused persons with similar allegations have been granted bail by this Court in MCrC No.10042/2022 vide order dated 16/12/2022 and MCRC No.6759/2023 vide order dated 07/11/2023 Therefore, she prays that this application may also be allowed. 4. Learned State counsel submits that multiple FIRs have been registered against the applicants however, he is not in a position to dispute that similarly situated co-accused have been granted regular bail by this Court in MCrC No.10042/2022 and MCRC NO.6759/2023. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties and that the similarly situated accused has been granted bail by this Court in MCrC No. No.10042/2022, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with one local surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the condition that - 3 a) They shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. b) They shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.03.07 17:16:40 +0530