Giriraj Sharmendra Maheshwari vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The High Court allowed the application for regular bail. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the fact that part payment had been made, that the amount in question related to the sale of goods to or through the applicant, and that the applicant had been in custody since June 17, 2021. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it inclined to release the applicant on bail. The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one local surety, subject to conditions including regular appearance before the trial court, not tampering with witnesses, and the State's liberty to apply for cancellation if the applicant is involved in similar offences in the future. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Giriraj Sharmendra Maheshwari, is seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that the applicant induced the complainant to transport goods worth Rs. 25,26,730/- by projecting himself as a wholesale businessman and making part payments, but failing to pay the balance amount. The applicant claims the transaction was commercial, part payment was made, and the remaining amount is due to pandemic-related delays. He has been in custody since June 17, 2021. The State opposes bail, alleging the applicant misrepresented his business address and is a habitual offender with prior criminal cases. The applicant counters that the GST number of his firm was mentioned in the FIR, and the cited criminal antecedents are old.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature of the allegations (Sections 420 and 409 IPC), the applicant's custody period, and the arguments presented by both sides? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contends that the transaction is purely commercial, a significant part payment has been made, and the outstanding amount is due to pandemic-related financial difficulties. The applicant has been in custody since June 17, 2021, and the alleged offences are Magistrate-triable, suggesting a prolonged trial. The applicant also points to the mention of a GST number in the FIR, questioning the State's assertion about misrepresentation of business premises. The applicant argues that the criminal antecedents cited by the State are old. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposes bail, arguing that the applicant misrepresented his business address, indicating an intent to cheat. The State also claims the applicant is a habitual offender with four other similar cases registered against him in Maharashtra, making him disentitled to bail.