Sushil Pagariya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Misc. Criminal Case No.3735 of 2017 • Sushil Pagariya S/o Late Shri Mangilal Pagariya Aged About 55 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Civil & Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant : Shri TK Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Neeraj Jain, Govt. Advocate Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of objector/complainant to assist the prosecution.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai Order On Board 04.8.2017 Heard the matter finally.

2.

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.286/2016 registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been arrested on 15.6.2016, after investigation charge sheet has been filed which is pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur as Criminal Case No.16480/2016. Learned counsel

for the applicant would submit that complainant Gajraj Pagariya is the brother of the applicant, Smt. Durga Devi is the wife of Gajraj Pagariya and Smt. Ugam Devi is the the mother of Gajraj Pagariya and the applicant. There are three companies within the family as Shreyans Finvest (Pvt.) Ltd. and in the said company Smt. Ugam Devi and the applicant are the directors, another company is Mangilal Pagariya Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. and in the said company Gajraj and the applicant are the directors and the third company is Chhattisgarh Powe Projects (Pvt.) Ltd. and in the said company Smt. Durga Devi and the present applicant are the directors. There is also one partnership firm namely Mangilal Pagariya firm in which present applicant, Smt. Ugam and Smt. Durga are the directors.

The applicant was holding a power of attorney on behalf of other partners in the said firm. On 18.5.2016 Gajraj, Smt. Ugam Devi and Smt. Durga Devi submitted written complaint against five persons namely present applicant, Heeralal Rampuria, RN Gupta, Mukesh Dewangan and Shaid Khan. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet only against present applicant and Shaid Khan. Shaid Khan has been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 07.3.2017 in M.Cr.C. No.736/2017. As per the allegation, present applicant and coaccused made false signature of the complainant and executed three lease deeds in favour of Gajraj, Durga Devi and Ugam Devi. Out of these, there is no hand writing expert report in relation with lease deed executed for Ugam Devi.

complainant Gajraj after examining the documents by a private hand writing expert, obtained a report and thereafter made a written complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that on the basis of said lease deed Durga Devi has been granted loan from Central Bank, goes to show that in the year 2013, the said document was in possession of Durga Devi. Gajraj is the Chancellor of Mats University. One employee of the said university Sachin Dwivedi sent a copy of the lease deed on 23.3.2013 after scanning the same, to the applicant and Gajraj. Both the deeds were duly registered before the Office of Registrar. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the witnesses of the lease deed against whom the charges are levelled, the police without following the procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C.

made them witnesses in the matter which is not permissible under the law. It is further submitted that as the offence were based on the documents and the complainant was once the Mayor of the Raipur and a well known person, how can it possible to produce any other person before the Registrar Office in place of Gajraj. It is further submitted that in some offences the applicant and the complainant prayed for compromise on 02.11.2016 and the Court below accepted the compromise for the offence under few sections and also there was some settlement between family. The applicant executed gift deed as per the said settlement but in turn Gajraj has not given any property as per their said settlement and thereafter the present applicant made objection during mutation proceedings.

patient. He was admitted in the hospital many times. The legislature made provisions for release of a sick person under Section 437 of the CrPC. It is further submitted that though earlier MCrC No.4579/16 was dismissed on 03.5.2017 but the said dismissal was on the fact that the applicant had not surrendered as directed by this Court as he was earlier granted temporary bail. With this, as the earlier petition was not dismissed on its merits the present MCrC may be considered on its merits and the applicant may be granted bail during trial. He will not abscond and in toto the dispute is in relation with property i.e. civil dispute. 4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State duly supported by counsel for the objector/complainant and would submit that there are criminal antecedent registered against the applicant prior to the incident which are as follows:

Sl.

No.

Crime No.

Offence U/S.

01.

122/2010 420, 379, 34 of IPC and Sectiuon 41, 63 & 65 oif the Copy Rights Act.

02.

286/2016 406, 418, 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471 IPC 03.

201/2010 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC 04.

147/09 307, 34 IPC 05.

15/2011 420, 467, 468/34 He further submits that earlier the applicant was granted temporary bail as he was ailing with cancer. But the applicant had misused the temporary bail granted to him and also looking to the facts surfaced in the written complaint it appears that the matter is

not only a civil dispute and also as the first bail application is dismissed by this court on its merits hence, looking to the entire facts, instant bail application may be dismissed. 5.

In reply learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was acquitted or police has filed closure report in all the aforementioned matters, hence the applicant is not a convict. 6.

Perused the material.

7.

As this Court earlier dismissed MCrC No.4579/2016 on entirety of the matter meaning thereby this Court duly considered the entire material surfaced in the charge sheet and after consideration of the entire material bail application of the present applicant was dismissed. Even otherwise, on perusal of the entire matter, I do not see any reason to grant bail as there is no change in the circumstances after the order dated 03.5.2017 passed in MCrC No.4579/2016.

8.

Consequently, bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- (Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) JUDGE Bini