Chattisgarh High Court
Manab Paul vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 September, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No.1142 of 2021
1. Manab Paul, S/o Shri Satyendra Nath Paul, aged about 54
years, R/o D-5/21, Gayatri Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur,
District Raipur (CG)
2. Manoj Mishra, S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Mishra, aged about 58
years, R/o Gayatri Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
---- Applicants
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Incharge Thana
Koni, District Bilaspur (CG)
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. B.P. Banjare, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
22/9/2021
1. Applicants have preferred this second bail application under
Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail as they
apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.70/21
registered at Police Station Koni, Bilaspur for commission of
offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC.
2. Earlier these applicants have filed two separate anticipatory
bail applications bearing M.Cr.C. (A) Nos.752/2021 &
753/2021 and the same were dismissed on merits vide
common order dated 27.7.2021.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 7.4.2021
complainant Sanjay Kumar Patle lodged complaint stating
therein that he was employed as 'Security Guard' by M/s Ideas
Inc Management Private Limited Company. Applicants are
Directors of that Company. It is further alleged that
2
complainant is working as Security Guard since 2016. Monthly
salary of Rs.10,500/- was being deposited in his bank
account. Amount towards GPF and GIS are deducted at times
and at times the same are not deducted. This fact was
brought to the notice of the Management of Guru Ghasidas
University, Koni, Bilaspur on several occasions but no action
was taken. Complainant also contacted Shri Anil Kumar
Baghel, newly inducted Director of the Company, who
informed complainant that thousands of rupees are being
deducted towards advance and PF which they have not
received at any point of time. A chart of PF & ESIC shown to
be deposited occasionally by the Company and deduction of
advance amount from salary mentioned in the register shown
to them by said Anil Kumar Baghel bears their forged
signature. Based on said complaint, instant crime is registered
against present applicants.
4. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants would
submit that after rejection of first application for grant of
anticipatory bail to applicants, this application has been filed
only on the ground that some material facts could not be
placed before this Court during the course of hearing of
previous bail applications i.e. M.Cr.C. (A) Nos.752 & 753 of
2021. He submits that prior to filing of aforementioned
applications, applicants have preferred writ petition before the
High Court along with relevant documents, which came to be
registered as WP(Cr) No.288/2021, a copy whereof is
3
annexed along with this bail application as Annexure A-3.
Considering the grounds raised in writ petition (criminal),
notices are issued to respondents therein vide order dated
17.5.2021. Complaint was lodged by Sanjay Patle, an
employee of Company working as Security Guard, stating that
he was not paid salary in time and salary is being paid to him
after deducting amount. Applicants' company is engaged in
the business of providing security guards and other manpower
to different institutions. Applicants' company is required to
deduct amount from salary towards Provident Fund & ESIC.
Hence, allegations levelled in complaint are absolutely false
and baseless. Initially, in the year 2016, complainant and other
employees were recruited by applicants' company and
thereafter they were deployed in Guru Ghasidas University,
Koni, Bilaspur as Security Guard, House-Keeper, Supervisor,
Sanitary Officer, Maali (Gardener) on the agreed payment of
wages of Rs.6,396/-, 6,656/-, 7,982/-, 6,396/- respectively.
Wages are paid to complainant accordingly, which has been
increased with the passage of time. Complainant was getting
salary of Rs.10,500/-, as is evident from documents annexed
at Page No.116 of this bail application. Complaint was lodged
at the instance of one Anil Kumar Baghel, who was inducted
as Director in applicants' Company on the assurance that he
will invest in the company as at relevant point of time
Company was facing financial crisis. When Anil Kumar Baghel
did not invest single penny in Company, he was terminated
from the post of Director, therefore, he was keeping grudge
against applicants and subsequently he succeeded in getting
false complaint lodged through complainant. He submits that
complaint is lodged by only one employee of the Company.
Allegation of non-payment of provident fund would not attract
offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. If applicants
being Directors of Company have committed any violation of
any provision of applicable law, then the authority competent
under the law can initiate proceeding against applicants. He
submits that there is no allegation in FIR as observed in Para-
7 of order dated 27.7.2021 (bail rejection order). A bare
reading of FIR would make it clear that offence as alleged
against applicant would not be made out. Contract with Guru
Ghasidas University is already terminated. Applicants have
also lodged report in concerned police station against said Anil
Kumar Baghel. He further submits that dismissal of first
anticipatory bail application on merit will not apply as bar in
considering second application for grant of anticipatory bail. In
support of aforementioned contention, he places his reliance
on the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindra
Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2010) 1 SCC
684; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of
Maharashtra & ors reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694; Bhaskar
Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 14
SCC 765; Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat &
anr reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152. Reliance is also placed on
decision of High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) dated
1.4.2005 in Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application
No.783/2005, parties being Ganesh Raj vs. State of Rajastha
& ors.
5. Mr. B.P. Banjare, learned Deputy Government Advocate for
the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel
for applicants and submits that first application for grant of
anticipatory bail was rejected on merits vide order dated
27.7.2021 and a glance of which would show that counsel
representing applicants therein has raised all the grounds, as
urged by learned counsel representing applicants in this bail
application. He pointed out that prior to filing of first
anticipatory bail application, applicants have preferred writ
petition (criminal) along with an application for grant of ad-
interim relief. Writ petition was admitted for consideration but
no order is passed on application for grant of ad-interim relief.
He submits that complainant was working as Security Guard
in the Company of which applicants are Directors; he lodged
complaint levelling specific allegation that amount of salary is
deposited in his bank account after deducting huge amount. It
is also mentioned in complaint that when complainant met with
newly inducted Director of Company namely Anil Kumar
Baghel for redressal of his grievance with regard to salary, he
was informed by said Anil Kumar Baghel that thousands of
rupees is deducted from his salary towards advance and
provident fund. Learned counsel also pointed out that during
the course of investigation, the police collected certain
documents from Guru Ghasidas University which show that
management of Guru Ghasidas University has also raised
objection saying that deduction, as shown in the list submitted
by applicants' company, towards advance recovery from
salary of almost all the employees recruited by company of
applicants is not proper. It has been further mentioned that
deduction towards provident fund and ESIC will only be
considered. He referred to letter dated 8.7.2020 written by the
University to applicants as also letter written by the University
to the Police Station Koni dated 4.6.2021 in support of his
contention. He submits that learned counsel for applicants has
not been able to point out as to what material could not be
placed before the Court at the time of consideration of first
anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of applicants.
Second application is not maintainable.
6. I have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the
case diary.
7. As per submissions made by learned counsel for applicants,
this second anticipatory bail application is filed only because
certain facts could not be brought into notice of this Court at
the time of consideration of first application of both applicants
for grant of anticipatory bail to them. But, even today learned
counsel for applicants has not been able to point out as to
which material fact/document could not be brought into notice
or was left out of consideration in previous anticipatory bail
applications. Submission made by learned counsel for
applicants that writ petition (criminal) filed by applicants prior
to passing of order dated 27.7.2021 (bail rejection order) is
admitted for consideration, in the opinion of this Court, cannot
be a ground for consideration of repeat anticipatory bail
application. Documents of payment of wages, as pointed out
by learned counsel for applicants, filed along with writ petition
were on record at the time of consideration of previous
anticipatory bail applications. Despite this factual position, this
Court perused record of previous anticipatory bail application.
Allegation contained in FIR is with respect to entries in register
of deduction of advance amount from salary of complainant
and other employees on the strength of forged signature.
Document showing deduction of advance amount from salary
of workmen recruited by applicants is further forwarded to
Guru Ghasidas University where complainant and others were
deployed. Letter pointed out by learned State Counsel also
demonstrates that deduction of advance amount from the
salaries of complainant and other employees deployed by
applicants was objected by the University. Thus, no new
ground / circumstance has been put raised by learned counsel
for applicants in this anticipatory bail application based on
which this subsequent anticipatory bail application can be
entertained.
8. So far as reliance placed by learned counsel for applicants on
the decision of Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Ganesh
Raj's case (supra) is concerned, in Paragraph-25 of said
judgment it was held as under:-
"25.In the ultimate analysis, placing reliance on the
ratio indicated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar's case
(supra), we hold that second or subsequent bail
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be filed if
there is a change in the fact situation or in law
which requires the earlier view being interfered with
or where the earlier finding has become obsolete.
This is the limited area in which an accused who
has been denied bail earlier, can move a
subsequent application. Second or subsequent
anticipatory bail application shall not be entertained
on the ground of new circumstances, further
developments, different considerations, some more
details, new documents or illness of the accused.
Under no circumstances the second or successive
anticipatory bail application shall be entertained by
the Section Judge / Additional Sessions Judge."
In case at hand also, learned counsel for applicants has not
been able to point out before this Court any change in fact
situation or in law warranting interference with earlier view.
9. In case of Bhaskar Mishra (supra) it was held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that repeated applications under Section 438
of CrPC are gross misuse of process of Court.
10. In view of above, I am of the opinion that there is no new
ground to reconsider prayer of applicants for grant of
anticipatory bail and accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
