Chattisgarh High Court

Rajesh Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2025

                                            1




Digitally signed
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI
                                                            2025:CGHC:38163
Date: 2025.08.02
14:01:03 +0530

                                                                         NAFR


                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                               MCRC No. 4498 of 2025
 * - Rajesh Sharma S/o Late B. R. Sharma Aged About 64 Years, R/o House
 No. 449, Phase-I, Rajkishore Nagar, Police Station Sarkanda, Tehsil And
 District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                   ... Applicant
                                    Versus
 * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur
 (C.G.)
                                                       ... Non-Applicant/State

  For Applicant                   : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate along with Mr.
                                    Kabir Kalwani, Advocate
  For Non-Applicant/State         : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government
                                    Advocate

                    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
                                  Order on Board

 01/08/2025

   1.    The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483

          of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 as he is jail since

          29.05.2025 in connection with Crime No. 111/2020 registered at Police

          Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the commission of an

          offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 406, 467, 468, 120-B

          read with Section 34 of IPC.

   2.    In this case, the charge-sheet has been filed on 26.07.2025, and the

          criminal case is pending consideration before the learned Judicial

          Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur.
                                      2

3.   The facts of the present case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on

     30.03.2020 by the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Branch

     CIMS, Bilaspur, on the ground that the co-accused - Arun Kumar Sahu,

     Proprietor, Royal Fabricate Firm and Vishwajeet Bhowmik approached

     the Bank on 03 dates, i.e. 12.05.2016, 07.06.2016 and 18.05.2016 to

     provide Bank Guarantees to the tune of Rs.1.85 crores payable to

     NSIC Calcutta. Later on, those Bank Guarantees were withdrawn on

     16.06.2016 and 23.06.2016 by Arun Kumar Sahu and Vishwajeet

     Bhowmik.

4.   The applicant herein, who was posted on the post of Manager in the

     said Branch, issued a letter on 29.6.2016 to NSIC Calcutta to the effect

     that the Bank Guarantees to the tune of Rs.1.85 crores were lying with

     the Bank. Later on, NSIC Calcutta issued letters to the Bank to encash

     the Bank Guarantees as Arun Kumar Sahu and Vishwajeet Bhowmik

     purchased goods from NSIC Calcutta against bank guarantees, and

     payment was not made. Thereafter, the Branch Manager of the Bank

     conducted an internal inquiry and lodged the F.I.R.

5.   Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would

     argue that the third anticipatory bail application was moved before this

     Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2022 in M.Cr.C.(A)

     No. 1652/2021. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Hon'ble

     Supreme Court by filing an SLP. He would contend that the SLP was

     dismissed on 06.12.2022, but liberty was granted to the applicant to

     surrender and move an application for the grant of regular bail.

     Anticipatory bail applications, i.e. M.Cr.C. (A) No. 1652/2021, M.Cr.C.

     (A) No. 603/2020 and M.Cr.C.(A) No. 504/2021, were rejected by the

     High Court.
                                      3

6.   Mr. Paranjpe would also submit that the applicant is not involved in the

     commission of the offence. He would argue that the Bank Guarantees

     were provided by Arun Kumar Sahu and Vishwajeet Bhowmik, and

     those Bank Guarantees were withdrawn by them. The allegation

     against the present applicant is that while discharging functions of the

     Branch Manager of the concerned Bank, vide letter dated 29.06.2016,

     he informed NSIC Calcutta that the Bank Guarantees were lying with

     the Bank. He would further argue that the act of the applicant may be

     termed as dereliction of duty or negligence on his part. He would also

     argue that there is no allegation of fraud with the Bank. He would state

     that the Bank has not suffered any loss, but the F.I.R. has been lodged

     by the Branch Manager of the Bank. With regard to the criminal

     antecedents of the applicant, Mr. Paranjpe would submit that 03 crime

     numbers were registered in the year 2019 against the applicant and in

     all those cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. He would

     further state that the applicant is a senior citizen, aged about 64 years

     and has been languishing in jail since 29.05.2025; therefore, the

     application may be allowed. He has placed reliance on the judgment

     passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ayub Khan Vs.

     The State of Rajasthan reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3763.

7.   On the other hand, Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Deputy Government

     Advocate, would oppose. Ms. Shukla would submit that the applicant is

     the main culprit and without his assistance, it would not be possible for

     the other co-accused persons to commit such a fraud. She would

     further submit that Bank Guarantees were provided by 02 other co-

     accused and later on, those Bank Guarantees were withdrawn by

     them. She would contend that, deliberately with the intention to cheat
                                       4

     NSIC Calcutta, the present applicant issued a letter dated 29.6.2016

     indicating that the Bank Guarantees were lying with the Bank on that

     date, whereas those bank guarantees were withdrawn prior to

     29.6.2016. She would also submit that there are 03 criminal

     antecedents of the applicant registered in the year 2019 for the

     commission of cheating, fraud and other offences. She has placed

     reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

     matter of Chandrakeshwar Prasad Alias Chandu Babu Vs. State of

     Bihar and Another reported in (2016) 9 SCC 443. She would submit

     that the bail application deserves to be dismissed.

8.   I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

     diary.

9.   In the matter of Chandrakeshwar Prasad (supra), the Hon'ble

     Supreme Court has held that the court should consider the prayer for

     bail after taking into consideration the overall facts. A duty is cast upon

     the Court in addressing such a prayer in a case on its own merits, and

     while applying its discretion, it must be applied in a judicious manner

     and not as a matter of course. The relevant paragraphs No. 9 to 12 are

     reproduced herein below:-

                   "9.    Although it has to be accepted that the
                   respondent-accused has already been granted bail by

the courts concerned in other cases, a duty is cast upon the Court in addressing such a prayer in a case on its own merits, and while applying its discretion, it must be applied in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. In support of this proposition, Mr. Bhushan has relied upon a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, wherein it was held in para 11 as follows:

(SCC pp. 535-36)

"11. The law in regard to grant of refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner

and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind.

It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

(a)The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(b)Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338.)"

10. This Court is Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 70 balanced the fundamental right to individual liberty with the interest of the society in the following terms in para 16 thereof: (SCC p. 79)

"16. We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them.

While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society."

11. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, this Court in the same vein had observed that though the period of custody is a relevant factor, the same has to be weighed simultaneously with the totality of the circumstances and the criminal antecedents. That these are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire and that societal

concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition to individual liberty, was underlined.

12. In the instant case, having regard to the recorded allegations against the respondent-accused and the overall factual scenario, we are of the view, having regard in particular to the present stage of the case in which the impugned order has been passed, that the High Court was not justified in granting bail on the considerations recorded. Qua the assertion that the respondent-accused was in judicial custody on the date on which the incident of murder in the earlier case had occurred, the judgment and order of the trial court convicting him has recorded the version of the brother of the deceased therein, that he had seen the respondent-accused participating in the offence. We refrain from elaborating further on this aspect as the said judgment and order of the trial court is presently sub judice in an appeal before the High Court."

10. In the matter of Ayub Khan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while

dealing with the issue of criminal antecedents held that the presence of

antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations

for deciding the prayer for bail and if the accused makes out a strong

prima facie case, depending upon the fact, situation and period of

incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to

deny bail. The relevant paragraph No. 10 is reproduced herein below:-

"10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents. In such cases, the question of incorporating details of antecedents in a tabular form does not arise. It the directions in the case of Jugal Kishore are to be strictly implemented, the Court may

have to adjourn the hearing of the bail applications to enable the prosecutor to submit the details in the prescribed tabular format."

11. In the present case, the applicant has given the details of criminal

antecedents in a tabular chart, and the same is reproduced herein

below:-

S.No. F.I.R. Police Offences Criminal Status of Number Station Case case number 1] 245/2019 Tarbahar 420/34 409/2021 Pending Challan has Accused been filed Appearance

2] 182/2019 Sirgitti 420, 467, 1105/2020 Pending 468, 471, Challan has Accused 120-B/34 been filed Appearance

3] 240/2019 City Kotwali 420 3150/2020 Pending Challan has Prosecution been filed Evidence

12. In the present case, at the relevant time, the applicant was posted as

the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Branch CIMS, Bilaspur.

The co-accused, namely Arun Kumar Sahu and Vishwajeet Bhowmik,

provided Bank Guarantees to the tune of Rs.1.85 crores on

12.05.2016, 07.06.2016 and 18.05.2016 in favour of the NSIC Calcutta

to purchase certain goods. They placed an order, and goods were

supplied by NSIC Calcutta to them. The consideration amount was not

paid; therefore, a requisition was made by NSIC Calcutta to the Bank

to encash the Bank Guarantees. By that time, the Bank Guarantees

were encashed by Arun Kumar Sahu and Vishwajeet Bhowmik. The

applicant herein communicated with NSIC Calcutta that the Bank

Guarantees were lying with the Bank vide letter dated 29.06.2016. In

the year 2019, two letters were issued by NSIC Calcutta for

encashment of Bank Guarantees; thereafter, an internal inquiry was

conducted by the then Branch Manager, and thereafter, the F.I.R. was

lodged. The allegation made against the present applicant would show

that he was negligent towards his duties and failed to communicate

with NSIC Calcutta with regard to the exact status of Bank Guarantees

without verifying the record. The act of the applicant may be

misconduct according to the service law or rules governing the Service

Conditions of the Branch Manager, but there is no thread of direct

involvement of the present applicant in the commission of offences.

13. The applicant has been in jail since 29.05.2025, the charge-sheet has

been filed, the other co-accused have been enlarged on bail, the

applicant has disclosed the criminal antecedents in tabular form in the

application itself and in all pending cases, he has been granted bail by

the competent courts.

14. With regard to the judgment cited by Ms. Shailja Shuka, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that the balance has to be struck between the

right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be

absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed.

15. In the matter of Ayub Khan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

categorically held that the presence of the antecedents may not be a

sole ground to deny bail.

16. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the allegations

against the applicant, without commenting anything on the merits of the

case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail

application is allowed.

17. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal

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

satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, he shall be released on bail

on the following conditions:-

i. 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/her from disclosing such fact to the Court; ii. he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial;