1 2025:CGHC:8380 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 238 of 2025 K.K. Shrivastava S/o Late S.P. Shrivastava Aged About 64 Years R/o Subhash Complex, First Floor, Rajiv Gandhi Ward, Bilaspur, Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Rawat Associates Through Its Managing Partner, Mr. Arjun Rawat, S/o Shri Seran Singh, Aged About 54 Years, Having Aadhar No. 5041 8261 9327, Residing At V-2/9 L-2 Villa Land-2, Jaypee Greens, Greater Noida, P.O. Greater Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh - 201308, OfÏce At Romanseque Villas And Apartments, B-402, Purena Labhandih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492006 ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sudeep Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Siddhant Das, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18/02/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 0525/2024, registered at Police Station– KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.21 10:45:05 +0530 2 Telibandha, District – Raipur, for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 406, 471, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, an FIR was lodged by one Ajay Kumar (complainant), on 06.08.2024, who is the Admin Manager of Rawat Associate. Arjun Rawat is the owner of said Rawat Associate. The FIR was lodged against the applicant-K.K.Shrivastava and also against his son Kanchan Shrivastava alleging that they had approached Arjun Rawat in June 2023 to invest certain amount of money in a project to develop Raipur Smart City (for short, the project). It was alleged that the applicants informed Arjun Rawat that a politician's brother had secured a project worth Rs.500 crores to build Raipur Smart City. It is further alleged that the applicant showed him certain fake documents relating to the above-named project. Allegedly, on the assurance of the applicant that investing an amount of Rs.15 Crores in five different accounts in between the period from 10.07.2023 to 17.07.2023 would secure to the complainant company the full contract for the project, the said amount was transferred by the complainant. However, the contract was never granted and the complainant was defrauded of an amount of Rs. 15 crores. It is also the allegation of the complainant that after repeated reminders to return the amounts, the applicant issued 03 cheques to Arjun Rawat to the tune of Rs. 3 crores each. When the cheques were presented for encashment, the same were dishonoured on the ground of ‘stop payment’. The complainant also alleged that the applicant had prepared a fake memorandum in the name of Glomax India (Arjun Rawat's Company) and the Chhattisgarh Government. When Arjun Rawat demanded the applicant to return back his money back, he was threatened by the applicant that he alongwith his family would be killed. 3 3. Mr. Sudeep Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2024 in M.Cr.C(A). No. 1114/2024. It is submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in a fabricated case. The present is a purely civil dispute relating to business affairs which has been tried to be given a colour of criminal act. There is no prima facie evidence on record that either the applicant has received any money or prepared any forged documents as alleged. 4. Mr. Shrivastava basically reiterates the submissions as was advanced by the learned Senior Counsel while arguing the first anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. In addition to that, it is submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the applicant and the complainant i.e. the non-applicant No. 2 have entered into a settlement agreement dated 24.10.2024 in order to put a quietus to the criminal proceedings. The allegations in the FIR at best constitutes a civil dispute which deals with the recovery of money on account of one party to another and the complainant on his free will, without any force or coercion has agreed for the settlement. It is next submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the offence in question is not a predicate offence and cannot be linked to any other investigation being carried out by the Enforcement Directorate. Even the forensic audit report relating to an entity (Arrowjet Enterprises) is totally unconnected with the applicant which has transferred money to another company i.e. Majestic Trading / Magestic Commercial and that company has invested money in some other company i.e. Mahadev Betting whose Director is in custody of the Enforcement Directorate. There is no connection of the applicant with any of the three companies. The arrest of the applicant is not at all required in 4 view of the settlement that has taken place between the applicant and the non-applicant No. 2. It has been further argued that the applicant is a resident of Bilaspur and is residing with his entire family which consists of his wife, two sons and one daughter, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding in case of his release on anticipatory bail. The applicant is ready to abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. 6. Lastly, it is submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the applicant had moved the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 194/2025 challenging the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by this Court in the first anticipatory bail application being M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1114/2024, however, the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide its order dated 24.01.2025, has directed the applicant to move this Hon’ble Court afresh. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for the State/Non-applicant No. 1 opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. He submits that the non-applicant No. 2-Company has been defrauded in a very systematic manner alluring that the applicant has connections with high ofÏcials of the State and that he would grant him a contract worth Rs. 500 Crores. So far as connectivity of the bank accounts with the applicant is concerned, Mr. Thakur states that one of the account i.e. R.H. International had transferred a sum of Rs. 25 Lacs to Neon Enterprises and from the account of Neon Enterprises, the amount has been refunded to the complainant. There is a statement of the employee of the applicant that he was asked by the applicant to procure SIM cards. The said person procured 15 – 16 SIM cards which were handed over to the applicant. Statement of one of the person belonging to Thane, Maharashtra, who is said to be the Director of Majestic Corporation has also been recorded who stated that he was not 5 aware as to any Company exists in his name. The FIR itself discloses the fact that when the complainant threatened the applicant that he would lodge a report against him before the police, the applicant agreed to return the money to the complainant and gave three cheques of Rs. 3 Crores each which were dishonoured because of ‘stop payment’ by the applicant. In this fraud, even the son of the applicant is involved. From the very inception, the intention of the applicant was to defraud the complainant as he was not in a position to grant a contract of Rs. 500 Crores to the complainant. There is a money trail which is being investigated by the police and the perusal of the preliminary forensic audit report clearly indicates the involvement of the applicant as accused in this case. Even no new grounds have been raised in this application. In nutshell, the grounds taken for opposing the first bail anticipatory bail application of the applicant, has been reiterated by the learned Deputy Advocate General. 8. Mr. Siddharth Das, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant No. 2/complainant submits that he does not have any objection if this Court grants anticipatory bail to the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 10. A perusal of the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 194/2025 {Annexure A/1 to the bail application}, it transpires that it was the counsel for the applicant who had sought withdrawal of the petition on the ground of certain subsequent developments and there was no direction by the Apex Court to the applicant herein to move this Court afresh. Only liberty has been granted by the Apex Court for filing of a fresh application. The grounds which 6 have been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in this application, have already been taken into consideration and rejected by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and no new ground whatsoever has been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 11. While considering M.Cr.C(A) No. 1114/2024 i.e. the first anticipatory bail application of the applicant herein, this Court had observed that the preliminary forensic audit report enclosed with the case diary was also perused which went to show that M/s. Arrowjet Enterprises transferred amounts to Majestic Trading and Services and the said Company has later merged into Majestic Commercials which is registered in Kolkata. The said Majestic Commercials had invested in Mahadev Betting App whose Director is in the custody of Enforcement Directorate. The conclusion of the preliminary forensic audit report also found the present to be a case of Money Laundering and also attracts the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short, FEMA, 1999). 12. The anticipatory bail application filed by the son of the applicant namely Kanchan Shrivastava, being M.Cr.C.(A)No.1319/2024, who is a co- accused, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024. One of the grounds taken by the applicant therein was that the complainant and the applicant had entered into a compromise with the complainant/ non-applicant No. 2 as some part of money was returned back to the complainant/non-applicant No.2, but this Court had deprecated such conduct of the applicant as well as the complainant/non-applicant No. 2 where an FIR was lodged at one’s own convenience and later tried to be withdrawn in the form of compromise, and especially when the dispute was not between two persons or individuals, but the offence was committed also against the State in the form of money laundering. 7 13. 7 13. The fact that the parties have entered into a compromise cannot nullify the offence that has been committed by the applicant. The Court cannot be a mute spectator of the modus operandi to the so-called transactions between the applicant and the complainant/non-applicant No. 2 which may or may not be commercial in nature as when the applicant did not return the money to the complainant/non-applicant No. 2, the FIR was lodged and for the reasons best known to the parties, now they have entered into a settlement and the non-applicant does not have any objection if the applicant is granted anticipatory bail. It is not at the whims and fancies of the non-applicant No. 2/complainant that the FIR may be lodged against one person and at his own convenience, the alleged offender may be let go off even when prima facie offence appears to have been committed. 14. The conduct of the non-applicant No. 2 also, who has intentionally been arrayed as a party in this bail application, when in the first anticipatory bail application, the same was not the party, also goes to show that he had given a huge amount of money to the applicant for obtaining government contracts through illegal means. In the first anticipatory bail application, the non-applicant No. 2 appeared as objector and contested the matter tooth and nail and the State also contested the matter vehemently as the learned Advocate General of the State objected the anticipatory bail application. Now the said complainant/non-applicant No. 2 has compromised his dispute with the applicant and has expressed no objection in grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Courts cannot be made a tool for the illegal acts of the parties who for their oblique motives/wrongful gain misuse the same to achieve their evil design. 15. The police is investigating the matter which involves transaction amounting to crores of rupees and from the perusal of the materials 8 available on record, it is evident that it may have some other aspects also and it may not be merely a disputed commercial transaction but may also include violation of various other laws of the land. Since the police is investigating various all the other aspects of the matter which involves money laundering and violation of the FEMA, 1999 and the allegations levelled against the applicant is very serious in nature involving a huge amount of Rs. 15 Crores, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 16. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant – K.K.Shrivastava, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 involved in Crime No. 0525/2024, registered at Police Station–Telibandha, District– Raipur, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 406, 471, 506, 120-B of IPC, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Kunal / Amit