Shravan Kumar Chouksey vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application. The primary reasoning was based on the perusal of the charge sheet filed before the trial court. While a charge sheet had been filed, the Court noted that column 16 of the charge sheet indicated that some material information was still awaited from certain departments. Coupled with the facts mentioned in the written complaint, the Court concluded that, at this stage, it was not a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. The Court did not explicitly address the civil versus criminal nature of the dispute or the validity of Annexure A/5 in detail, but the decision to deny bail was directly linked to the incomplete investigation as reflected in the charge sheet. No specific legal provisions beyond the bail application section were discussed in detail for the denial.

Facts

The applicant, Shravan Kumar Chouksey, is seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 886/2024, registered at P.S.-Gorakhpur, District-Jabalpur, for offences under Sections 420 and 408 of the IPC. The FIR was registered on 09.12.2024, based on a written complaint dated 19.01.2024, alleging a defalcation of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. The applicant claims to have paid Rs. 55,00,000/- in lieu of a settlement, as evidenced by Annexure A/5 dated 31.08.2023. He argues the dispute is civil in nature and that no auditor's report has been filed. The objector disputes the validity of Annexure A/5, stating it pertains only to a current account and not the savings account where the alleged transactions occurred, and that the applicant opened the account using forged documents. The State contends the amount received was from a security company and was further transferred to other individuals.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contends that a significant amount (Rs. 55,00,000/-) has already been paid towards settlement, as per Annexure A/5, which was an agreement where he was authorized to receive money. He argues that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, as it concerns the exact amount credited and paid back. The applicant also highlights that no auditor's report has been filed, despite the charge sheet being filed, and that he has been in custody for over three months, with no custodial interrogation required. He further suggests the criminal case was initiated under duress after a GST notice was issued to the complainant. Revenue/State's Arguments: The objector argues that Annexure A/5 is not signed by all parties and is based on misrepresentation. They assert it only covers current accounts, while the case involves a savings account opened with forged documents and FDs, as per a report from SBI Bank. The objector maintains the case is criminal, not civil. The State supports this, stating the applicant received funds into his personal account which belonged to a security company, and then transferred it to others, and that the charge sheet documents do not warrant bail.