Dilip Kumar vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicants, Dilip Kumar and Afroz Ahmed, along with Shiv Bahadur Pal, are seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 748 of 2022, registered at Police Station Khairagarh. The prosecution alleges that the complainant was defrauded of Rs. 44,56,047/- after being induced to deposit money for a loan that was never disbursed. The complainant was initially asked to deposit Rs. 18,199/- as an insurance amount, and subsequently, further amounts towards process charges, GST, and other taxes. The applicants were arrested on December 27, 2022, and December 21, 2022, respectively. This is their second bail application, as the first was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive after the complainant's examination. The applicants claim innocence, false implication, and a compromise with the complainant.

Held

The Court allowed the second bail applications, granting regular bail to the applicants. The decision was based on several factors: the applicants' prolonged period of incarceration since December 2022, the fact that the offences are triable by a Magistrate, and crucially, the compromise that had taken place between the applicants and the complainant. The Court also took into consideration the complainant's statement and the fact that he had not supported the prosecution's case. The reasoning hinges on the principle that once a compromise is reached and the victim no longer wishes to pursue the matter, and considering the time already spent in custody, continued detention may not be necessary, especially for offences of this nature. The operative direction was to release the applicants on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one local surety, and they are directed to appear before the trial court on every date until the trial's disposal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given their prolonged incarceration and the alleged commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 34 of the IPC and Section 66(D) of the IT Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants are innocent and falsely implicated. A compromise has been reached between the applicants and the complainant, leading to the complainant's acquittal for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the trial court. The allegations are baseless, and there is no evidence to show the applicants committed cheating or had knowledge of the incident. They played no role in the alleged offense, did not receive money in their accounts, nor contacted the complainant. The complainant has not supported the prosecution's case. The applicants were implicated based on the memorandum of a co-accused. They have been in jail since December 2022, and the offences are triable by a Magistrate. They are ready to furnish adequate security and abide by court conditions. Revenue's Arguments: The State, through its counsel, opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants.