Anuj Kumar Ohja vs. State (Through S.H.O)

Facts

The petitioner, Anuj Kumar Ojha, sought regular bail in FIR No. 03/2023, registered under Section 420 of the IPC. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, posing as a director and producer, defrauded him of Rs. 4,43,142. The petitioner allegedly induced the complainant to pay for GST, profile updates, and income tax for purported brand paid shoots. The complainant stated that after initial payments, the petitioner demanded more money, and upon refusal, stated it was the complainant's problem. The petitioner was apprehended in Bhopal while attempting to escape to Indore. He was served a notice under Section 41.1A Cr.P.C. but allegedly did not cooperate, leading to his arrest. The investigation revealed the petitioner allegedly cheated youngsters by promising acting opportunities and collecting fees for contracts, artist cards, and taxes. The petitioner was also involved in another FIR in Panchkula, Haryana. The petitioner claimed the complainant approached him for shooting reels, an agreement was signed, and payments were made pursuant to it. He stated the complainant later refused to participate due to family opposition and demanded money back, leading to the FIR. The chargesheet has been filed, and the petitioner has been in custody since February 7, 2023.

Held

The Court allowed the application for regular bail. The Court noted that the investigation in the case had been completed and the chargesheet had been filed. It was also observed that the applicant had been in judicial custody since February 7, 2023, and as of February 1, 2024, had undergone 11 months and 25 days of incarceration. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, including the completion of investigation and the period of custody undergone, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including not leaving India without permission, intimating any change of address, appearing in court as required, keeping his mobile number operational, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court explicitly stated that nothing in the order was an opinion on the merits of the case. No specific issue regarding GST provisions was discussed or decided, as the case primarily revolved around allegations of cheating and the grant of bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the charges of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC and the amount allegedly defrauded. Petitioner's Arguments: - The complainant approached the petitioner for shooting reels, and a deed was executed. - Payments were made in pursuance of the agreement. - The complainant subsequently refused to participate due to family opposition and demanded money back, leading to the FIR. - The investigation is complete, and the chargesheet has been filed. - The petitioner has been in custody since February 7, 2023, and the trial is likely to take time. - The money received was utilized for shoot-related expenses with vendors, and records exist, though they cannot be produced due to custody. - The petitioner organized certain shoots, demonstrating bonafide intention. Respondent's (State) Arguments: - The complainant was dishonestly induced to part with Rs. 4,43,142 by promises of shoots that were not honored. - The petitioner was involved in another FIR (No. 03/2022) under Sections 406/420 in Panchkula, Haryana, indicating a pattern of conduct.