Dr. Prithi Pal Singh Sethi v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 10046 of 2018 Dr. Prithi Pal Singh Sethi, S/o. Late Shri Ram Singh Sethi, Aged About 64 Years, R/o. 59/179, Wadi House, 101, Bhutal Dr. B N Road, New Hyderabad, Police Station Mahanagar, Lucknow, At Present R/o 109, Ukta Co- Operative Board Society, Jogeshwari West Mumbai Maharashtra, District- Mumbai Maharashtra.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police StationTumbgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent M.CR.C. No. 10047 of 2018 Dr. Prithvi Pal Singh Sethi, S/o. Late Shri Ram Singh Sethi, Aged About 64 Years, R/o. 59/179, Wadi House, 101, Bhutal Dr. B N Road, New Hyderabad, Police Station Mahanagar, Lucknow, At Present R/o 109, Ukta Co- Operative Board Society, Jogeshwari West Mumbai Maharashtra, District- Mumbai Maharashtra.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent AND M.CR.C. No. 175 of 2019 Dr. Prithi Pal Singh Sethi, S/o. Late Shri Ram Singh Sethi, Aged About 64 Years, R/o. 59/179, Wadi House, 101, Bhutal Dr. B N Road, New Hyderabad, Police Station Mahanagar, Lucknow, At Present R/o 109, Ukta Co- Operative Board Society, Jogeshwari West Mumbai Maharashtra, District- Mumbai Maharashtra.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationChhawani, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ajayinder Gangwan, Advocate with Mr. Devendra Singh, Mr. Rohan Sharma & Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Arun Shukla, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 06/02/2019 1.
These are the second bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant. The applicant in M.Cr.C. No.10046/2018 has been arrested in connection with crime No.193/2015, registered at Police Station - Tumbgaon, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence under Section 420, 409, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act, 1978 and Section 10 of Investors Protection Act, 2005. In M.Cr.No.10047/2018, the applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.13/2017, registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence U/s. 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of Investors Protection Act, 2005 and the applicant in M.Cr.C. No.
175/2019 has been arrested in connection with Crime No.233/2016, registered at Police Station Chhawani Bhilai, District - Durg for the offence punishable under Section 420, 409, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes, Banning Act, 1978. The first bail applications of the applicants are rejected on merits vide order dated 10.05.2018. 2.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the applicants in all three cases is languishing in jail without any fault on their part. They have been implicated by the directors of the companies. The applicant has several health complications and the
trial is taking time. Hence, under these circumstances, it is prayed that these applicants may be granted regular bail. 3.
State Counsel opposes the bail application and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that earlier bail application filed by the applicant in all the cases have been rejected on merits after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that it is a case of huge fraud and cheating and there is every likelihood that the time will be consumed in recording of the statement of the witnesses. The applicant can not escape of his responsibilities being the director, who have cheated huge number of investors and amassed huge amount by fraud, therefore he is not entitled for grant of bail in any of the case.
4.
The earlier bail applications filed by this applicant in all three cases have been examined in detail and the applications have been rejected. Since the date of rejection of those applications, 7-8 months have passed, which can not be regarded as sufficient time for conclusion of trial against him, therefore, I do not find any change in circumstances to reconsider the bail applications of the applicant within a short span of time.
5.
Accordingly, all the bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. are rejected. However, the liberty is granted to the applicant to file repeat application, in case the trial against him is not concluded within one year from today.
Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram