Chattisgarh High Court
Mohammad Salim Tigala vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 January, 2023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9809 of 2022
Mohammad Salim Tigala S/o Mohammad Imamuddin Aged About 38
Years R/o Ward No. 08, Mararpara, Balod, P. S. And District Balod,
Chhattisgarh .
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P. S. Balod,
District : Balod, Chhattisgarh.
----Non-applicant
For Applicant Shri Akhtar Hussain, Advocate.
For State Shri Adil Minhaj, G. A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
19/01/2023
1. This is the First Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with Crime
No.395/2022 registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) for
the offence under Section 420 of IPC.
2. Facts
of the case in brief is that on 08/09/2022 the complainant has filed
a complaint before the Police Station alleging that two years prior the
present applicant has obtained Rs.7,50,000/- and agreed to sale the
land and also executed power of attorney in favour of the complainant
and during the execution of the power of attorney the applicant has said
that he would pay this amount and take his documents or sell the land in
favour of the complainant, in respect of this the applicant has paid
amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (cash received with notary) thereafter the
applicant has gave cheque of Rs. 5 Lacs and the same was dishonored
by the bank with marked that the account has been closed. Then the
applicant has mortgaged the land and has taken the loan of
Rs.12,50,000/- thereby the applicant has cheating with applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation against the
applicant is false and fabricated. He further submits that no ingredients of
Section 420 of IPC is made out, there was a monetary transaction
between the applicant and the complainant and certain amount was
taken by the applicant as a loan from the complainant, cheque was also
given and allegedly the said cheque was dishonored, the notices to
prosecute the applicant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act
was also given by the complainant, thereafter a report has been lodged.
There is no ingredients of any criminality but it is a purely civil transaction
which has been given in a colour of criminality. He places reliance upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandran
Ratnaswami vs. K.C. Palanisamy and Others, reported in (2014) 1
SCC (Cri.) 447 and submits that the investigation is complete, charge-
sheet has already been filed, trial is likely to take some time, applicant is
in jail since 16/09/2022 and the offence is triable by the Magistrate.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the
bail application. He further submits that according to the complaint
certain amounts were taken by the applicant and as a surety that land
was also given to the complainant with power of attorney, subsequently
the present applicant came to know that the land was also mortgaged by
the present applicant in Central Bank of India and thereby obtained loan,
therefore, by this he is committed the offence.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considering their rival
submissions.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the
nature of allegations, period of detention, charge-sheet has already been
filed, and after placing reliance the judgment of Supreme Court, I am
inclined to allow this bail application. Accordingly, the application is
allowed. It is directed that in the event of applicant executing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the
concerned Trial Court, he shall be released on bail.
7. The applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses acquainted with
the facts of the case in any manner whatsoever, and that if anything like
this comes to the notice of the Court below, it may cancel the bail granted
to him.
Sd/-
Sachin Singh Rajput
Judge
Kamde
