Siddharth Bangani, v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

qNAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8407 of 2021 Siddharth Bangani, S/o Shri Ramesh Bangani, Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Bangani Hardware Ganj Road, Navapara Gobra Navapara, Tahsil Abhanpur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Gobra Navapara Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ----Non-applicant For Applicant :

Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Nishant Bhanushali, Advocate For State :

Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer For Objector/complainant :

Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 20/12/2021 1.

This is an application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 337/2021 registered at Police Station Gobra Navapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The present applicant is in jail since 29.09.2021.

2.

The case of the prosecution against the present applicant is that the objector/complainant had filed a complaint before the Police Station Gobra, Nawapara, Raipur, wherein it has been alleged that on the pretext of providing employment under the State Government the applicant has taken Rs.20,00,000/- from the complainant and thereafter he has failed to provide employment. 3.

Learned counsel for the applicant referring to Annexure A/2 submitted that it is a pure civil dispute between the parties as the

applicant was not able to repay the loan amount, which the applicant had obtained from the complainant. According to the counsel for the applicant, the loan amount was received for the domestic work and was meeting the domestic expenses of the present applicant. 4.

The plain perusal of the proceedings and the pleadings of the case diary, it appears that the complainant herein is an unemployed youth having done his PGDCA and MBA course and was in search of employment. The applicant herein on the other hand admits having received Rs.20,00,000/- from the complainant. This sufficiently suggest that prima-facie the applicant had received money from the complainant. Thus, prima-facie strong inference is to be inferred that the applicant must have received the amount on the pretext of providing employment to the complainant.

5.

Given the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into consideration the short period of custody undergone, this Court does not find any strong case made out for grant of bail. Accordingly, the present MCRC stands rejected. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved