1 2025:CGHC:441 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8665 of 2024 Dr. Manmohan Kumar Khanduja S/o. Shri. D.P. Khanduja Aged About 67 Years R/o. House No. 36-A/6, Nehru Nagar, East Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Chhavni, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Senior Advocatge assisted by Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For objector : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.01.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 119/2022 registered at Police Station Chhavni, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2 2. The prosecution alleges that Ghanshyamdas Rungta Foundation's Treasurer, Sonal Rungta, filed a complaint stating that Dr. Manmohan Kumar Khanduja, along with others, conspired to defraud Rs. 19.14 crores. The accused, directors of BSR Super speciality and BSR Cancer Hospitals, proposed selling their hospitals and properties for Rs. 96 crores. As per the sale agreement dated January 9, 2018, the complainant paid Rs. 19.14 crores through RTGS from February 2018 to October 2019, with the assurance that the properties would be registered debt-free in their favor. However, the accused allegedly failed to clear encumbrances, execute the sale deed, and instead transferred control of the properties to Vipin and Aman Agarwal under a new entity, Hitek Super speciality Hospital. The applicant claims that the dispute arises from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated January 9, 2018, between BSR Cancer Hospital and the GD Rungta Foundation. The complainant allegedly failed to meet payment obligations, leading to the cancellation of the sale and subsequent legal notices for recovery. Despite the property registration in favor of Hi Tech Super Specialty Hospital Pvt. Ltd. on January 20, 2021, the complainant initiated proceedings, including the present FIR, to recover a civil debt. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed the complainant's petition on November 23, 2023, holding the complainant as the defaulting party. The applicant argues that the FIR is a misuse of criminal law to settle civil disputes and harass them. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant 3 is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He also submits that the present case is a case of completely commercial dispute. He further submits that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the IPC of the year 2024 which is pending trial. He also submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and the applicant is in jail since 19.10.2024, the conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has not been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the IPC which is stated to be pending. Moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case which is taken on record and the applicant is in jail since 19.10.2024, and the conclusion of the trial may takes some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled 4 to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant – Dr. Manmohan Kumar Khanduja, involved in Crime No. 119/2022 registered at Police Station Chhavni, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek