Naved Mirza vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Naved Mirza, filed an anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 403/2024 registered at Police Station Rajnandgaon Kotwali for offenses including cheating and forgery. The prosecution alleges that Mrs. Geetanjali Gajbhiye, the then Assistant Director of Fisheries, Rajnandgaon, along with others, including the applicant (operator of M/s Star Supplier Bilaspur), misused government funds of Rs 216.00 lakh sanctioned for cage culture fisheries by using forged documents. The applicant contends he is innocent, falsely implicated, and his name only appears in the FIR, not in the subsequent police report certified on 10.12.2024. He argues his cage installations were lawful and payments were made against work orders and quotations, with GST claimed by the department. He also notes the main accused, Mrs. Gajbhiye, has been granted regular bail.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court considered the facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and crucially, the preliminary investigation report presented by the Deputy Director which found no discrepancies. The Court also noted that the applicant's name was only in the FIR and not in the police report certified on 10.12.2024. Furthermore, the fact that the main accused, Geetanjali Gajbhiye, had already been granted regular bail by this Court was a significant factor. Based on these considerations, the Court was of the view that the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with one surety, subject to several conditions aimed at ensuring his cooperation with the investigation and trial, and preventing any interference with justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of misappropriation of government funds and use of forged documents? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued for anticipatory bail based on his innocence, false implication, and the fact that his name is only in the FIR and not in the subsequent police report. He asserted that his organization's work was lawful, payments were made against valid documents, and the GST component was claimed by the department, indicating no discrepancies on his part. He further relied on the grant of regular bail to the main accused, Mrs. Geetanjali Gajbhiye. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, submitting that the applicant, along with co-accused, misappropriated Rs 216 Lakhs by misleading the administration with forged beneficiary documents and committing irregularities in the granted amount, thus rendering him disentitled to anticipatory bail.