Saranya Prabha Haran v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1322 of 2019 • Saranya Prabha Haran W/o Shri Prabha Haran Linga Rajan Aged About 32 Years R/o 228, Thevangar Street, Thiruvidaimarudhur, Taluk, Thugali, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu.
Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Mohan Nagar Durg, Civil And Revenue, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Alok Nigam, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 24/10/2019
1. The applicant has filed this bail application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as she is apprehending her arrest in connection with crime no. 236/2019, registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of the IPC and Section 4 & 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
2. In this case there are two accused persons. As per prosecution story, the applicant and her husband/co-accused were running a travel company with the name of Jom Travels 200. Allegedly, they have obtained some amount from the investors by alluring that if they would invest money on their company and bring more investors to
their company, such investors would be benefited with foreign tour and their money would be refunded with more interest. On being allured, the complainant and other investors invested their money and thereafter the applicant and other co-accused have changed the name of their company with the name of My Life Style 100 and neither they have returned the money of the investors nor they have given any tour.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is only the wife and partner of the co-accused who was running the company. There was no role of the applicant in the alleged offence. Co-accused is the husband of the applicant who has already been granted regular bail from the Trial Court itself. He lastly submits that the applicant is a lady and she is a reputed person of her society, she is a permanent resident of above mentioned address and there is no chance of her absconding, therefore, she may be granted benefit anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State opposes the bail application.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution, arguments advanced by both the counsel appearing for the parties. Without further commenting on merits of the case, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case for grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
8. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting her and she shall abide by all the following terms and conditions:-
I.
That the accused/applicant shall made herself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required;
II.
The accused/applicant 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer;
III.
The accused/applicant shall not act, in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and IV.
The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham