Sanjeet Sharma vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The High Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the nature of the allegations, the facts of the case, and the submissions made by both parties. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The operative direction was that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety. The applicant was also directed to make himself available for interrogation, not to induce or threaten witnesses, not to act prejudicially to a fair trial, and to appear before the trial court on all dates until the disposal of the trial.

Facts

The applicant, Sanjeet Sharma, a Director of Iconoio Tarrents Market Pvt. Ltd., sought anticipatory bail. The prosecution alleged that the complainant was induced to invest money with promises of jobs and high returns. She deposited Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 14,080, but instead of a job, she was provided with clothes valued at Rs. 34,000 and a GST bill of Rs. 39,080. The complainant alleged she was cheated and the company refused to refund her money. The applicant argued that the company is in the business of direct marketing of clothes, and salesmen receive commissions. He contended that the amounts deposited by the complainant and others have been refunded, supported by affidavits from individuals like Sangeeta Rajwade, who stated she received Rs. 40,000. Other co-accused have been granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the allegations of cheating and non-refund of money. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant, a director of the company, argued that the business is direct marketing of clothes and salesmen earn commissions. He claimed that the money deposited by the complainant and others has been refunded, evidenced by affidavits. He also pointed out that other co-accused have been granted bail, suggesting parity. The applicant contended that since the complainant's grievance regarding non-refund has been satisfied, he should be granted anticipatory bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State counsel opposed the bail application. However, regarding the execution of affidavits, the State counsel stated that, based on information received, the complainant Sangeeta Rajwade had indeed executed an affidavit on 13.07.2021, confirming the receipt of her money back.