1 2025:CGHC:10922 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 612 of 2025 Dr. Manmohan Kumar Khanduja S/o Shri D.P. Khanduja Aged About 68 Years R/o House No. 36- A/6, Nehru Nagar, East Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant :Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State :Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. For Objector :Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/03/2025 1 The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1230/2024, registered at Police Station – Supela, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 420, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant along with his associate Rajesh Rai, conspired to cheat the complainant, Sharda Prasad Sinha, and several other individuals by inducing them to invest in the establishment of BSR Health Venture Pvt. Ltd. under the false promise of a 15% annual dividend. Between 2011 and 2016, they allegedly collected substantial sums totaling approximately ₹1,06,90,000/- from the complainant and his associates, including 5 lakhs from the complainant himself. The accused initially disbursed some dividends to create a semblance of credibility but later stopped payments altogether. Upon repeated demands for repayment, the accused reportedly issued cheques to the investors, which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Subsequently, it is alleged that Dr. Khanduja and his associate absconded from Bhilai, further exacerbating the breach of trust and deepening the suspicion of fraudulent intent. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution claims that the accused intentionally deceived the complainants and dishonestly misappropriated the invested amount. 3 It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. They further submits that the FIR lodged by the complainant is false and has been lodged maliciously, at the behest of the 3 Rungta Group. The sole intent behind this FIR is to harass and arm-twist the applicant for ulterior motives, thereby tarnishing this reputation and causing unnecessary distress. They also submits that the trial Court has erred in failing to consider that the FIR pertains to alleged offences that purportedly occurred between 20.08.2014 and 31.12.2016. However, the FIR was registered after an inordinate and unexplained delay of several years. They later submits that the matter in question pertains to a civil dispute and does not involve any criminal activity or fraudulent intent as required under the provisions of the IPC. They also submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedents which is pending, the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 05.12.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, they prays for grant of 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 been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 5 Learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the bail application of the present application is liable to be rejected. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and 4 the fact that alleged offence occurred between 20.08.2014 and 31.12.2016, however, the FIR was registered after an inordinate and unexplained delay of several years, further the dispute is purely civil in nature, the applicant has one previous criminal antecedents which is pending, and the charge-sheet has been filed and he is in jail since 05.12.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 8 Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Dr. Manmohan Kumar Khanduja, involved in Crime No. 1230/2024, registered at Police Station – Supela, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 5 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. (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 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 Preeti