Chattisgarh High Court
Gurmeet Singh Bhatiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:15066
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2142 of 2023
Gurmeet Singh Bhatiya S/o Late Mahalsingh Bhatiya Aged About 53 Years R/o
Plot No. 5, Akash Ganga Complex, Supela, Dist. Durg (C.G.).
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Devendra Nagar,
Dist. Raipur (C.G.).
2 - Abhishek Agrawal S/o Ashok Agrawal Aged About 41 Years R/o Krishna Rice
Mill, Mungeli Road, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Sanjay Khanna S/o Late Indra Khanna Aged About 48 Years R/o Warehouse
Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - Dulal Banerjee S/o Durgadas Banerjee Aged About 52 Years R/o 4/44,
Parasrampuriya Towers Link Garden Chs, Off Link Road, Lokhandwada,
Andheri West, Mumbai 400053 (Maharashtra)
5 - Mayur Govindbhai Kanani S/o Govind Bhai Gokaldas Kanani Aged About 43
Years R/o B/303, Ekta Bhumi Garden, Duttpada Road-2, Rajendra Nagar,
Borivali East, Mumbai 400066 (Maharashtra)
6 - Sudhir Sarin S/o Satish Chander Sarin Aged About 56 Years R/o B-46,
Second Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, Delhi 110017
Digitally signed
by VASANT
VASANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.02
12:23:20 +0530
2
7 - Sunil Sethi S/o Baldeoraj Sethi Aged About 57 Years R/o 80-C, Lig Dda Flats,
Gulabi Baug, Delhi 110007.
--- Respondents
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
For Petitioner : Mr. Suyash Gupta, Advocate appears on
behalf of Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate
For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL
Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
28/03/2025
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439(2) of
CrPC for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused persons by
this Court vide order dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure P/1).
2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that one Ashok Agrawal is
Manager of one company, namely, Hathway CCN Multinet Private Limited
(the CCN Company’ for short). All the other Applicants/Non-applicants as
well as Complainant/Applicant Gurmeet Singh Bhatia are Directors of the
CCN Company. Applicant/ Non-applicant Abhishek Agrawal is son of
Applicant Ashok Agrawal. The CCN Company is engaged in business of
cable network in the State of Chhattisgarh since 2010. On 10.6.2020, a
written complaint was filed by Complainant/Director Gurmeet Singh Bhatia
3
against other Directors and Manager of the CCN Company, i.e., the
Applicants herein with the allegations inter alia that the business of the CCN
Company is being run by Applicant/ Non-applicants Ashok Agrawal and his
son Applicant/ Non-applicants Abhishek Agrawal. After appointment of the
Complainant/Applicant as a Director of the CCN Company, he made
demands for his dividend in the CCN Company from Applicant/ Non-
applicant Abhishek Agrawal from time to time. Applicant/ on-applicant
Abhishek Agrawal assured him that he will be paid his dividend in future.
Whenever the Complainant/Applicant asked to show accounts of the CCN
Company, he was not shown the same and was being avoided to see the
same. In the year 2016, work of digital connection was started by the CCN
Company. Then the Complainant/Applicant again made demand for payment
of his dividend, he replied that after completion of the work of digital
connection, he will pay his dividend. But, thereafter also, he was not paid his
dividend. It is further alleged that whenever any meeting of the Company
CCN was convened, the Complainant/applicant was not called to attend the
meeting. On a doubt getting raised in his mind, the Complainant made an
inquiry in the CCN Company on his own.
3. On the inquiry, it was found by him as under:
(A) In the year 2016, in place of new set top boxes, second
hand/old set top boxes were purchased by the CCN Company
4from Indore (Madhya Pradesh) and were supplied to the
customers and resultantly a 4 financial loss of Rs.3,30,00,000
was suffered by the CCN Company.
(B) From the business of cable network a sum of Rs.
10,00,00,000 and from the carriage fee a sum of Rs.
10,00,00,000 was received in cash by the Applicant/ Non-
applicants but the same were not deposited in the account of the
CCN Company and were distributed by them among
themselves, which resulted financial loss of Rs.20,00,00,000 to
the CCN Company.
(C) By making forged entries in the accounts of the CCN
Company, a total estimated financial loss of Rs.40,00,00,000
was caused to the CCN Company.
(D) A loss of Rs.5,00,00,000 was caused to the CCN Company
by submitting forged bills against purchases of various articles
relating to the CCN Company.
(E) The Applicants/Non-applicants did not issue receipts against
receipt of payments from local cable operators and did not
deposit the said amount in the account of the CCN Company
5
and withheld the same with them and thereby they caused loss
of crores of rupees to the CCN Company.
(F) In the year 2016, Applicants/ Non-applicants Ashok
Agrawal and Abhishek Agrawal, without any resolution or
authority of the CCN Company, opened two accounts in the
Central Bank of India, one at Shankar Nagar, Raipur branch and
the other at Civil Line, Raipur branch and by depositing the
income of the CCN Company in those two accounts they are
misusing the said deposits in their favour. It is further alleged by
the Complainant that in the year 2019, he made a written
complaint to the Registrar of Companies and to the Hathway
Private Limited, Head Office, Mumbai. On this, the 5
Applicants/ Non-applicants contacted him and they assured him
that they will pay his whole dividend very soon and they will
also deposit the amount of loss caused to the CCN Company in
its account. But, they did not do so.
4. On the basis of the written complaint dated 10.6.2020 submitted by the
complainant, First Information Report was registered by the concern P.S.
under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that looking to the gravity of
the offences as well as the condition of case, which has been caused by
present Non-applicant no. 2 to 7/accused, bail orders of the present Non-
applicant no. 2 to 7 is liable to be rejected. On perusal of order sheet of .
Court below it can be construe pellucidly that Non-applicant no. 2 to 7 have
not marked their presence before the Ld. Court below. since 03.06.2022 and
hence disobeyed & violated. condition number (ii) and (iii) of Para 11 of the
order dated 21.09.2020, passed by this Hon’ble Court in the matter of
MCRC(A)/731/2020 and other connected matter. He further contended that
the non-applicants/accused have not honored the condition imposed by this
Hon’ble Court and acted in cavalier manner disobeyed the order of this
Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the Non-applicants/accused have
committed serious offence of financial irregularities, with intention to earn
undue benefit. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be allowed the
instant petition and bail order of respondents No.2 to 7 dated 21.09.2020
passed by this Court in MCRC(A) No.731 of 2020 may be cancelled.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission
made by counsel for the petitioner.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record with utmost circumspection.
7
8. On the issue with regard to rejection of bail and cancellation of bail already
granted, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Dolat Ram and others
Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, has held in para 4,
which reads as under:-
“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage
and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered
and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted.
Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail,
broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or
attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of
justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of
justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in
any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of
material placed on the record of the possibility of the
accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the
cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not
be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering
whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no
longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain
his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the
8trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the
High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already
granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the
distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-
bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail
already granted.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hazari Lal Das Vs. State of
West Bengal and another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 652 held in para 7,
which reads thus:-
“7. There is nothing on record that there has been
interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice by the appellant. It also does not
appear from the record that the concession granted to him
has been abused in any manner. No supervening
circumstances have surfaced nor shown justifying
cancellation of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion
exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting the anticipatory
bail has been interfered with by the High Court in the
absence of cogent and convincing circumstances. We are,
thus, satisfied that the impugned order cannot be
sustained.”
9
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner, pleadings made in the petition, further keeping in
view the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid decisions on the issue of cancellation of bail, this Court finds no
such reason or supervening circumstance so as to warrant cancellation of
anticipatory bail granted to the accused. It is clear from the order dated
21.09.2020 that anticipatory bail was granted by this Court to the accused
persons considering the totality of the facts of the case. Though the counsel
has contended that the accused is misusing the liberty granted to them and
are not appearing before the concerned trial Court on the fixed date, but
application filed by the counsel for the accused for exemption for appearance
of the accused before the trial Court and the same was allowed by the trial
Court, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no
ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by this Court on
21.09.2020.
11. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Vasant
[ad_1]
Source link