Sonu Kumar vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Sonu Kumar, a 19-year-old farmer, is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 145/2024 registered at Police Station Dallirajhara, District Balod. The prosecution alleges that between February 17, 2024, and May 6, 2024, the applicant cheated the complainant of Rs. 24,92,200/-. The applicant allegedly posed as an official from the Head Branch, Mumbai, and contacted the complainant, claiming outstanding RBI charges, GST charges, and income tax. He threatened that if the amounts were not deposited, the complainant's account balance would be transferred to the government. The complainant was then instructed to transfer the money to the applicant's account via Google Pay. The applicant has been in jail since June 28, 2024, and a charge-sheet has been filed.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Sonu Kumar. The decision was based on several factors: the applicant's period of detention since June 28, 2024; the allegation that he fraudulently obtained Rs. 24,92,200/- by falsely claiming outstanding RBI, GST, and income tax charges; the crucial fact that the said transferred money has already been returned to the complainant on Supurdnama; and the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents. Furthermore, the charge-sheet has been filed in the case. The Court reasoned that these circumstances collectively made the applicant eligible for release on bail. The operative directions included furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, filing an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, remaining present on each date fixed for trial, and specific conditions regarding his presence during the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement. The Court also expressed hope that the trial court would conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, his period of detention, and the fact that the alleged fraudulent amount has been returned to the complainant on Supurdnama. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contends that he has been falsely implicated, has no role in the crime other than his account being used for transactions, and was unaware of the fraud. He highlights his young age (19 years), his responsibility as a farmer, his lack of criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet has been filed, suggesting the trial will take time. He also emphasizes that the transferred money has been returned to the complainant. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposes the bail application, arguing that the applicant fraudulently obtained Rs. 24,92,200/- by falsely claiming outstanding RBI charges, GST charges, and income tax, and therefore, he is not entitled to bail.