1 2025:CGHC:5311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 818 of 2025 Satyanand Panigrahi S/o Bhagirathi Panigrahi Aged About 49 Years Occ.- Business R/o Flat No. 4112, Tower No. 4, Parker Residency Kundali, Sonipat, Haryana Presently R/o 112, Palm Estate Aarey Colony, Goregaon East, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400065 ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Viral Rathod, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Smt. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 12/2024, registered at Police Station AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 City Kotwali Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant, Nishit Patel, submitted a written report to the in-charge of the City Kotwali Police Station at Dhamtari, alleging therein that he is the Manager of Purushottam Das Dhori Bhai & Company, located on Bastar Road at Dhamtari. On 14.04.2023, at 1:00 pm, two individuals, Raghvendra Soni and Vaibhav Kulkarni, visited his office and introduced themselves as the area head and vice president of Silve Line Power Station Private Limited, an E-vehicle manufacturing Company, from the States of Odisha and Chhattisgarh. They discussed the possibility of granting a distributorship to Patel's Company and, through them, began negotiations with the Company's Director, Satya Panigrahi, to obtain the distributorship for e-vehicles. Satya Panigrahi told Patel that to obtain the distributorship, he would need to deposit an advance of Rs 1,51,000/- into the Company's account. Patel transferred the amount to the Company's account on 27.04.2023, through RTGS. Subsequently, Satya Panigrahi sent Patel a distributor form, which he filled out and returned to the company. On 31.05.2023, the company sent an invoice proforma for e- vehicles worth Rs 37,37,384/-. The Company's Manager, Shubham Sharma, assured Patel that if he deposited 30% of the amount into the Company's account, the order for the E-vehicles 3 would be prepared. Patel then transferred Rs 9,50,000/- to the company's account through RTGS on 31.05.2023. 3. Later, the Company demanded an additional Rs 25,00,000/- from Patel to obtain the distributorship and to enter into an agreement. Patel transferred the amount to the Company's account, but the company failed to deliver the E-vehicles and instead misled him. In this manner, the Company's director, Satya Panigrahi, and Managers, Shubham Sharma and Rajnikant Lanka, conspired to cheat Patel by providing false assurances and allurements, obtaining a total of Rs 36,01,000/- as an advance, and committing a fraud against him. Thereafter, the offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submit that upon perusal the charge-sheet, it is apparent that the applicant's Company initially issued a legal notice to the Complainant's firm to pay damages for not unloading the E- Vehicles and failing to sell them. The Complainant's reply to the notice shows their intention to back out of the business and cause loss and damage to the applicant's Company. He also submits that the commercial dispute has been converted into a criminal case, further the complainant lodged an FIR without waiting for the prescribed period of 90-180 days for cancellation of the distributorship and refund of payment, as mentioned in the 4 agreement, there is no evidence to show that the Applicant is facilitating or indulging in cheating the Complainant. The emails and correspondence in the charge-sheet show that the Complainant did not receive the delivery of E-Vehicles, resulting in a loss to the applicant's Company. The batteries were not sent attached to the E-Vehicles due to safety concerns, but the Complainant failed to cooperate and assumed they had been cheated without adhering to the agreement. The applicant is in jail since 28.10.2024, so far as criminal antecedents of applicant is concerned, applicant has four criminal antecedents for the offence of identical nature, which are of the year 2024, out of which, two are in the State of Haryana, in which, the applicant is bail out, one is in the State of Uttar Pradesh and one is in the State of Bihar and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons, conspired to cheat complainant by providing false assurances and allurements, obtaining a total of Rs.36,01,000/- as an advance, and committed a fraud against him, further applicant has four criminal antecedents for the offence of identical nature, which are of the year 2024, out of which, two cases are in the State of Haryana, one case is in the State of Bihar and one case is in the 5 State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy and the fact that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons conspired to cheat complainant by providing false assurances and allurements and obtained a total of Rs.36,01,000/- as an advance, and committed a fraud and so far as criminal antecedents of applicants is concerned, applicant has four criminal antecedents for the offence of identical nature, which are of the year 2024, out of which, two cases are in the State of Haryana, one case is in the State of Bihar and one case is in the State of Uttar Pradesh, though the applicant has been granted bail in two cases in the State of Haryana, but it is pertinent to note that he is a habitual offender, who, in connivance with his associates, has perpetrated fraud upon numerous individuals across various States in the country, further if the applicant is enlarged on bail, it will cause hindrance in smooth running of the trial, as he belongs to Maharashtra and is wanted in other States of the country. It is noteworthy to mention here that it cannot be said to be a case of civil nature, but it is an offence of misrepresentation with a dishonest intention as the applicant has deceived the complainant 6 and obtained a huge amount in the name of giving distributorship of E-vehicle, as such, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Satyanand Panigrahi, involved in Crime No. 12/2024, registered at Police Station City Kotwali Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trail expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil