Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46058 (CHH)

SHAHRUKH KHAN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/8946/2024 · 2025-02-12

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:7545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8946 of 2024 Shahrukh Khan S/o Mr. Miya Khan Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 5-11-172, Yellamgutta, Nizamabad, Telangana. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO. Makdi,, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.02.2025 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. 41/2024 registered at Police Station Makdi, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34, 467, 468, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. According to the prosecution, on 04.04.2024, the complainant was added to a WhatsApp group called "Long Creek Capital." The ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.02.13 13:47:29 +0530 2 group's admins were Amit Gupta (mobile number 8961362527), Alicia Edwards (mobile number 8093319675), and another individual (mobile number 7640865095). The group had 48 members, including the admins and the complainant. A link was shared in the group, which led to a website discussing investments in the share market and other related investments. Online classes were conducted by Alicia Edwards and Kamla Patel, where participants were informed about investing through FPI in IPOs. Amit Gupta instructed the complainant to contact Alicia Edwards, who induced the complainant to open an account and provide documents. The complainant was then directed to deposit amounts into various accounts, with promises of higher profits for larger investments. The complainant deposited a total of Rs. 58,66,859/- into five accounts: 1. Account number 89233380564, named Shubham General Stores 2. Account number 2211263039029770, named Prathmesh Surendra Labde 3. Account number 259053000019926, named Al Ameen 4. Account number 42934817112, named Khan Mobile Shop 5. Account number 43050169752, named Ajay Trader. These deposits were made on different dates between 19.06.2024, and 21.05.2025. Initially, profits were shown in the complainant's account, but when the complainant attempted to withdraw the amounts, they were not withdrawn. The complainant then realized he had been defrauded and filed a complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the 3 aforesaid case. He submits that the mobile number which has been shown in complaint through which the complainant has been induced and cheated does not belongs to the applicant. He also submits that the five accounts in which the amounts so deposited also does not belongs to the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 11.09.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and also considering the fact that in the present bail application the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 11.09.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Shahrukh Khan, involved in Crime No. 41/2024 registered at Police Station Makdi, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34, 467, 468, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail 4 on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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. (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 5 opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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. 8. 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. 9. OfÏce 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