Chattisgarh High Court
Wasim Akram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 June, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:28278
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2487 of 2025
Wasim Akram S/o Mushtaq Siddiqui Aged About 35 Years Occupation Business,
R/o Village Phuljhar, Police Station Champa, Post Office Sanna, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh. Present Address Rasulpur (Mominpura), P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur,
District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
--- Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh.
--- Non-applicant
MCRC No. 4708 of 2025
Shahrukh Khan S/o Md. Shabbir Aged About 27 Years Occupation Private Job, R/o
Village Khorma, Post Office Pratappur, P.S. And Tahsil Pratappur, District Surguja
(C.G.)
---Applicant
Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., Police Station Rajpur, District
Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)
--- Non-applicant
2
MCRC No. 3647 of 2025
Wasim Akram S/o Mushtaq Siddiqui Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Business,
R/o Village- Phuljhar, Police Station- Champa, Post Office- Sanna, District- Jashpur
(C.G.) Presently R/o Rasulpur (Mominpura), Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur,
District- Surguja (C.G.)
---Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Ambikapur
District- Surguja, (C.G.)
--- Non-applicant
MCRC No. 3640 of 2025
Wasim Akram S/o Mushtaq Siddiqui Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Phuljhar,
Police Station - Champa, District- Jashpur (C.G.), Presently R/o Rasulpur,
Mominpura, Police Station - Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)
---Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Rajpur,
District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)
--- Non-applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia & Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Adv.
For Non-applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
26.06.2025
1.
Since all the bail applications arise out of the same incident, therefore,
they are being heard analogously and decided by this common order.
3
2. M.Cr.C. No. 2487 / 2025 has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to
the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 124
/ 2024 registered at Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur (C.G.),
for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 379
read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. M.Cr.C. No. 3640 of 2025 has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to
the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 74 /
2024 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-
Ramnujganj (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 420,
467, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
4. M.Cr.C. No. 3647 of 2025 has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to
the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 555
/ 2024 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.),
for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-
B read with Section 34 of the IPC.
5. M.Cr.C. No. 4708 of 2025 has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to
the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 74 /
2024 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-
Ramnujganj (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 420,
467, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
6. [For the sake of convenience, M.Cr.C. No. 2487 / 2025 would be
4
taken-up as lead case]
7. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.08.2024, complainant
made a written complainant alleging inter alia that he received RC
Book through courier containing details of a vehicle bearing
registration number CG 29 AG 1344, dated 06.02.2024, registered in
his own name, which is financed by Hinduja Leyland Finance. It is
alleged that neither he (complainant) nor his family member, had
purchased the said vehicle nor given any document for finance of
purchasing any new vehicle during the entire year. It is further alleged
that relevant photocopy of the complainant’s documents got stolen
from the dickey and misused by the applicant & other co-accused
persons for finance of the aforesaid vehicle. Based on aforesaid facts,
present crime has been registered against the applicant and other co-
accused persons and they have been arrested.
8. Learned counsel for the respective applicants would submit that the
applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime in question, as
there is no evidence on record to connect them with the crime in
question. It is further submitted that the incident had occurred on
15.01.2024 whereas FIR has been lodged on 09.09.2024, as such,
there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which has not been
explained. He submits that similarly situated co-accused person
namely Manish David has already been released on bail by this Court
vide order dated 18.03.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2160 of 2025,
hence, the applicants are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.
He further submits that the applicants are languishing in jail since
03.11.2024, 12.12.2024 & 07.01.2025, respectively; charge-sheet has
5
already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take
considerable time, hence, the applicants may be enlarged on bail.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while opposing the bail
applications would submit that looking to the gravity and seriousness
of the crime and the manner in which, alleged offence of cheating is
said to have been committed by the applicant, they are not entitled for
grant of bail. He submits that case of Manish David, who is said to be
co-accused of the case, is distinguishable to the case of the present
applicants, as he is only Manager of Showroom, from where, the
alleged vehicle has been purchased, and through him online
transactions were made to the Showroom.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
placed on record.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the
facts of the case, particularly, considering the nature & gravity of the
offence, looking to the seriousness of the crime and the fact that case
of co-accused namely Manish David is distinct from the present
applicants because he is the manager of the Showroom, from which
the alleged vehicles were purchased, and the online transactions were
done in the showroom through him, thus, without commenting on
merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to
enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
12. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant namely – (1) Wasim
Akram , involved in Crime No. 124/2024, registered at Police Station
Bagbahar, Distridt Jashpur for the offence punishable under Sections
420, 467. 468, 471, 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC (2), Wasim
6
Akram, involved in Crime No. 74 / 2024 registered at Police Station
Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramnujganj (C.G.), for the offences
punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 read with Section 34
of the IPC (3) Wasim Akram, involved in Crime No. 555 / 2024
registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), for the
offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B
read with Section 34 of the IPC & (4) Shahrukh Khan involved in
Crime No. 74 / 2024 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District
Balrampur-Ramnujganj (C.G.), for the offences punishable under
Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC, are
rejected.
13. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed
and conclude the trial expeditiously.
14. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
- Sd/ Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
amita
Digitally signed by AMITA
AMITA DUBEY DUBEY
Date: 2025.07.01 11:36:13 +0530