Sunil Gujrati (Written As Suneel ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5576 Chatt

                                                                       NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          MCRCA No.630 of 2022

      Sunil Gujrati (Written as Suneel Gurati in the impugned Bail Order),
       S/o Late Shri Gopal Das Gujrati, Aged About 59 Years, R/o D3,
       Chitawad Road, Navlakha, Shivmoti Nagar, Indore, Pin Code
       452001, Tahsil Civil and Revenue District Indore (Madhya Pradesh)

                                                               ---- Applicant

                                   Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg, District
        Durg, Chhattisgarh

     2. Sunil Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Laxminarayan Agarawal, aged about
        67 years, R/o 1/45, Motilal Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, P.S. Supela,
        Tehsil, Civil and Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh

                                                           ---- Respondents

For Applicant Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate

For Respondent-State Mr. Alok Nigam, GA

For Respondent-Objector Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate with Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate

Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey

Order on Board

07/09/2022

1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C., as he is apprehending his arrest in

connection with Crime No. - registered as Criminal Complaint Case

No.360/2020 [Complaint was registered by JMFC, Durg (C.G.],

registered at Police Station - not applicable (complaint case) for the

offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 read

with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant Sunil Agrawal

lodged a written report alleging that Laxmi Ventures (India) Limited Company is comprising of his family members and at a given time,

the same was owned and held by the then accused persons Anil

Agarwal, Smt. Chitra Agarwal, Akash Agarwal and Sandeep

Agarwal. The said Company owned land Nos.30, 31 in Shivnath

Complex, Supela, Bhilai, which was purchased by the Company in

the year 1997 and for the purpose of securing a loan from the State

Bank of India, the applicant under the directions of the other co-

accused made an application to get the NOC from the Municipal

Corporation, Bhilai for mortgaging it to the Bank and in support of

the said application, gave a forged affidavit of the complainant

impersonating himself as Sunil Agrawal and obtained NOC on

9.2.2011. When this fact came to the knowledge of the complainant,

he has lodged a complaint before the Police on 12.01.2015, but no

action was taken by the Police so a complaint was preferred before

the CJM, Durg, which was dismissed by the JMFC, Durg on

27.12.2017. The said dismissal order was challenged by the

complainant before the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in a

Criminal Revision and vide order dated 08.01.2019, the matter was

remanded back for re-enquiry. The said fact came to the notice of

the present applicant when the notices were issued to the accused

persons in Revision and hence, the anticipatory bail application has

been preferred.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits

that the allegations are false and fabricated and there is

enormous delay of 4 years in approaching the authority for

initiating the case. The complainant himself does not own the

said land and is not connected with any work

concerning the Company for more than two decades and the co-

accused Akash Agarwal has already been granted anticipatory bail

by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 01.03.2022 in MCRCA No.1634/2021. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that no

wrongful loss would be caused to the complainant pertaining to the

said loan particularly when he never owned the said land. The NOC

was never used to secure a loan from the SBI and

the complainant does not have any specific charge or allegation

against the present applicant except the grievance that the

applicant has authorized the applicant to get the NOC from the

Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. Therefore, the applicant be released

on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel has placed his reliance on the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of

Dr. Vimla vs The Delhi Administration1, Vijay Kumar Ghai and

others vs The State of West Bengal and others 2 and Rekha Jain

vs The State of Karnataka and Anr.3

4. Learned counsel for the State and Objector oppose the bail

application and submit that the applicant was only authorised to

apply for NOC for obtaining loan, but the forged affidavit has been

executed in the name of the complainant to get undue advantage.

They further submit that a false plea has been taken by the

applicant that instead of the name of deponent Sunil Gujrati, the

applicant, inadvertently the name of Sunil Agarwal has been typed

in the affidavit. They next submit that the anticipatory bail, which has

been granted by the Coordinate Bench to the co-accused, is on the

ground that the accused Akash Agrawal therein never filed any

application or affidavit for obtaining NOC and it was the applicant

who filed a forged affidavit of the complainant impersonating himself

as Sunil Agrawal to get NOC, as such the present applicant may not

be extended the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.PC.

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

1 AIR 1963 SC 1572 2 AIR Online 2022 SC 380 3 AIR Online 2022 SC 696 parties, nature of allegations, facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly the fact that the NOC so issued was returned to the

concerned Municipal Corporation and further considering that the

co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by the

Coordinate Bench, on whose instructions the affidavit was filed by

the applicant, the present is considered to be a fit case to extend

the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the applicant.

6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in

the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on

anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of

Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of

the Arresting Officer with the following conditions :-

(i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

(ii) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him for disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.

(iii) he shall not influence the witnesses during pendency of the trial;

(iv) he shall not leave the Country without the permission of the Court concerned.

Sd/-

Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala