Vikram Rana v. State Of Chhattisgarh & ANR.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C.(A) No.162 of 2018 Vikram Rana, aged about 47 years, S/o Mr. R.C. Rana, Resident of Subhash Nagar, Gali No.5, Fagvada, District Kapurthala, Punjab, through Power of Attorney Sajid Kalawadia, aged about 37 years, son of Abdul Majid Kalawadia, Resident of Dhangar Chowk, Tikarapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through Police Incharge, Police Station Golbazar, Raipur
2. Poonam Singh Rajput, aged about 37 years, S/o Mr. Girdhar Singh Rajput, Resident of Shikari Para, Ward No.19, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents and M.Cr.C.(A) No.95 of 2018 Neelmani Patel, aged about 37 years, S/o Mr. Lalu Patel, resident of 430/11, Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through Police Incharge, Police Station Golbazar, Raipur
2. Poonam Singh Rajput, aged about 37 years, S/o Mr. Girdhar Singh Rajput, Resident of Shikari Para, Ward No.19, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicants :
Shri Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State :
Shri Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 :
Shri Avinash Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 10.4.2018 1.
Since both the anticipatory bail applications arise out of a common complaint case, they are disposed of by this common order.
2.
The Applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with a criminal complaint case, being Criminal Case No.4581 of 2017 registered against them in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
Facts of the case are that Respondent No.2, Poonam Singh Rajput filed a complaint case, being Criminal Case No.4581 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur against the present Applicants and other co-accused, namely, Smt. Kanchan Kalash, Prakash Kalash, Sharad Goyal, Jagdish Singh Bagga, Trilochan Singh Saluja and Parvindar Singh Chhabda making allegations that all the accused usurped the property of partnership firm Vardhman Infrastructure, in which he is one of the partners, by executing sale-deed where his (Poonam Singh Rajput's) signature has been obtained without his knowledge and the sale-consideration has never been paid to him as the cheque was issued in favour of the firm, but later on, the said cheque was turned into self-cheque and thereby the saleconsideration has also been usurped by the accused. 4.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that Applicant Vikram Rana has lodged a First Information Report against Respondent No.2/Complainant Poonam Singh Rajput as Respondent No.2, by making forged signature in the Bank, mortgaged the property of the firm Vardhman Infrastructure in which Applicant Vikram Rana
is one of the other partners. On the basis of the said FIR, a criminal case is registered and pending against Respondent No.2 and, therefore, Respondent No.2, for taking revenge, has made false allegations against Applicant Vikram Rana. It is further argued that without knowledge of Applicant Vikram Rana, Respondent No.2 mortgaged the property of partnership firm Vardhman Infrastructure in the Bank for loan and he also put forged signatures of Applicant Vikram Rana on the mortgage papers. In this regard, Applicant Vikram Rana has also filed a civil suit. It is further argued that Applicant Neelmani Patel was employed in the firm Vardhman Infrastructure. He had only gone to the Bank to deposit the cheque and as required he had put his signature behind the cheque while depositing it in the Bank. 5.
Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/State and Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 oppose the prayer for bail to the Applicants.
6.
I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care. 7.
Taking into consideration the facts that Vardhman Infrastructure is a firm in which Applicant Vikram Rana and Respondent No.2, Poonam Singh Rajput are partners, a criminal case is already pending against Respondent No.2 due to his putting forged signatures of Applicant Vikram Rana on mortgage papers, after filing of charge-sheet against Respondent No.2, he preferred the complaint case against the Applicants and other co-accused and Applicant Neelmani Patel was only an employee of the partnership
firm Vardhman Infrastructure, I am inclined to allow both the applications for grant of anticipatory bail.
8.
Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed. 9.
It is directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicants in connection with the aforesaid offence, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Presiding Officer of the concerned Trial Court. They shall also abide by all the following terms and conditions:
(i) They 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court, (ii) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) They shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE Gopal