Shravan Kumar Chouksey vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the second bail application, granting bail to the applicant. The primary reasoning for allowing the bail application was the fact that despite the dismissal of the earlier bail application, and the charge sheet mentioning that certain material information was awaited from specific departments, this information had not been collected or obtained by the investigating officer even as of the current date. The Court acknowledged that the applicant had been in jail since 10.12.2024 and that the charge sheet had been filed. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, with conditions for regular appearance before the trial court. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the decision was based on procedural delays in investigation rather than a final determination of guilt or innocence.

Facts

The petitioner, Shravan Kumar Chouksey, is seeking a second bail application in connection with Crime No. 886/2024, registered for offences under Sections 420 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged on 19.12.2024, concerning incidents between 23.01.2018 and 17.01.2024. The petitioner was employed as a manager in an Ex-serviceman Security Force service. A compromise was allegedly reached between the complainant, his father, and the petitioner, with the complainant receiving Rs. 55,00,000/-. The petitioner's first bail application was dismissed on 20.03.2025, noting that some material information was awaited. The petitioner has been in jail since 10.12.2024. The charge sheet has been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, considering the completion of investigation and the pending awaited information from certain departments, as per Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argues that no offence under Sections 420 and 408 of the IPC is made out. He contends that a compromise was reached, and the complainant's father's statement suggests the complainant is orchestrating the situation to evade GST. The petitioner claims the complainant opened multiple company accounts and deposited funds to evade GST, filing a complaint only after receiving a GST notice. He relies on the principle that once a compromise is arrived at, no further proceedings can be initiated, citing *Naresh Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravindra Kumar and others*. He also argues that as the case pertains to financial irregularity and investigation is complete, he is entitled to bail, referencing *Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation* and *Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another*. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application. The objector's counsel argued that the compromise was not valid as it was limited to the current account and did not cover other accounts, and that material facts were suppressed. They alleged forged documents, including FDRs, and stated that the complainant's father was not in favour of the compromise. The objector's counsel also claimed the petitioner misled the court regarding the firm's registration and operational start date, and that the Gumasta Certificate was forged. They asserted that the firm operated with a single valid GST registration number, negating tax evasion claims.