1 2025:CGHC:1858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8470 of 2024 1 - Vikesh Kumar Agrawal @ Vicky S/o Shri Shankar Lal Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Plant Number 502, S.B.L. Ganga Apartment, Police Station Pet Basirabd, District Rangareddy (Telangana) Present Address- Prashant Towers, Plant Number 112C, Murseerabad, P.S. Pet Baseerabad, District Sikandrabad (Telangana) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10 .01.2025 1. The applicant has filed this third bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail. The first bail application i.e. MCRC No. 1465 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.3.2024 and the second bail application i.e. MCRC No. 5668 of 2024 was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.8.2024. The applicant was arrested on 09.02.2024 in connection with Crime No.839 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by Police Station- Sirgitti, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 2. As per the prosecution story, one Sajan Agrawal lodged a written complaint making an allegation that from 30.11.2020 to 20.8.2021, the present applicant received the delivery of De-oiled Rice Bran from the complainant but failed to make payment of Rs.17,92,133/-. The complainant lodged the written complaint on 19.11.2022 at police station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur against Kamla Sai Ekka Traders Proprietor Bharat Reddy, Nakshatra Ekka Proprietor Suresh Moka, Sajana Enterprises Proprietor Vicky Agrawal, Sai Siri Vanila Ekka Traders Proprietor Swami and S.S. Ekka Private Limited Proprietor Sangi Raju Shrivani. The outstanding amount for other proprietors was different. The police investigated the matter and seized various documents. The invoice issued by Sajana Enterprises, Vijayawada was seized by the police and it was issued by the present applicant for the period from 1.4.2023 to 9.2.2024 and as per the invoice, the outstanding amount was Rs.17,92,133/-. The mobile which was being used by the applicant during the course of the transaction was also seized by the police, the applicant was arrested on 9.2.2024 and the seizure memo was signed by the applicant. The signature present in the seizure memo and in various invoices is almost similar. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, the complainant has named the present applicant. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the competent Criminal Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the complainant made a complaint against the Sajana Enterprises Proprietor Vicky Agrawal, a resident of Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh but the name of the present applicant is Vikesh Kumar Agrawal and he is not the Proprietor of Sajana Enterprises. He would further contend that the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. He would further contend that 3 the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant has been in jail since 9.2.2024, therefore, he would pray to enlarge the applicant on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the applicant. He would submit that the applicant cheated the complainant as after delivery of the article, he failed to make payment. He would contend that the other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail as they made payment of the outstanding amount. He would further submit that there is sufficient material in the charge-sheet against the present applicant. He would also submit that the invoices were signed by the present applicant himself. He would further contend that the signatures available on invoices are similar to the signatures put by the applicant on the arrest memo. He would also contend that in the earlier bail applications, which were withdrawn, no such plea was taken by the applicant and for the first time, in the third bail application the applicant has taken a plea that the proprietor of Sajana Enterprises was Vicky Agrawal, not Vikesh Agrawal. He would argue that the charge-sheet has been filed against Vikesh Agrawal @ Vicky Agrawal and both are one and the same. He would state that the application deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. 6. Perusal of the case-diary would show that a complaint was made by one Sajan Agrawal against the present applicant and other co-accused persons as they failed to make payment of the outstanding amount after delivery of De-oiled Rice Bran oil. The other co-accused persons were enlarged on bail as they refunded the amount to the complainant. It is the third bail application and in the earlier two rounds, the applicant never took a plea that he is not the person against whom the complaint was made. The 4 invoices issued by the present applicant contain his signature and the signature available in the arrest memo is similar to the signature available on invoices. Further, the complainant has named the present applicant in the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. The invoices issued by the applicant have been seized by the police during the course of the investigation. 7. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the third bail application of the applicant for grant of regular bail is rejected. Sd/-Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi