Rajasthan High Court
Mr. Everest Chidi Williams S/O ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 July, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
7480/2021
Mr. Everest Chidi Williams S/o Everest, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
71 Uloasi Onitsha Umuahaia Nigeria Present Address 301
Blessing Apartment Sec 30 Kharghar Navi Mumbai (Presently
Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma
For State : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
30/07/2021
1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section
439 Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No.01/2020 was registered at Police Station Cyber
Crime, Jaipur for offence under Sections 419, 420, 465, 120-B
I.P.C. and Sections 66(D) of I.T. Act and Sections 14(B) and 14C
and 14 D of the Foreigner Act.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the first bail
application was rejected on 15.01.2020. It was stated by the
Investigating Officer that at the time when bail was heard that
similar type of offence was committed in Hissar, Haryana where
investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was pending and that
petitioner was also involved in that case. Charge-sheet has been
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-7480/2021]
filed in the case which was registered in Haryana and no
proceedings are pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against the
present petitioner.
4. On the last date of hearing, it was stated by the
Investigating Officer that the mobile number of petitioner matches
with the mobile number mentioned in the FIR No. 0678/2017
lodged at Hissar Civil Lines Police Station, Hissar. It is further
contended that the mobile number mentioned in the FIR is not
matching with the mobile number of the petitioner. It is contended
that, as per the FIR, complainant was cheated from August, 2017
till March, 2018. Present FIR has been lodged in Jan, 2020 i.e.
after an inordinate delay. It is also contended that petitioner is not
named in the FIR. There is no mention that any amount which was
deposited in the bank account was actually received by the
petitioner. None of the accounts is in the name of the petitioner. It
is further contended that petitioner has remained in custody for a
period of more than sixteen months. The maximum sentence
provided for under the Act is seven years.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant
have opposed the second bail application. It is contended that
petitioner is involved in the alleged offence and he has cheated
the complainant. Packets of Macadamia seeds are supplied but, it
came to the notice of the complainant that super seeds are of no
use. It is also contended that complainant has been duped of
about 1 crore and 3 lakhs rupees.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-7480/2021]
petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application.
8. This second bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is
directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided
he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
two Lac only) together with two local sureties in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-each (One Lac only) each to the satisfaction of the
trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that
Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all
subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do
so.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
NIKHIL KR. YADAV /7
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
