NAGESHWAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail to applicant as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.364/2021 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar (CG) for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120(B), 34 of IPC.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24/1/2017 applicant submitted application for grant of loan with complainant Shriram Finance Company. After verification of facts mentioned in application form, loan of Rs.5.00 Lakhs was sanctioned to applicant. When applicant has not deposited the instalments of loan amount, Shri H.S. Tiwari, employee of finance company, visited site, he found that at the time of submission of application for grant of loan present applicant has shown some other shop i.e. sweets and plastic corner shop of Ramfal Sahu, whereas applicant is running shop of fancy and plastic items. On the report of H.S. Tiwari, Nikesh Kesharwani lodged complaint to the police station. Based on written report, instant crime is registered against applicant and other accused persons.

(3.) Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for applicant would submit that false and frivolous allegations have been levelled in complaint against applicant. At the time of submission of application for sanction of loan in his favour, applicant has submitted relevant documents of his shop/ business. After submission of documents along with application form, the employee of finance company had visited site, verified the facts mentioned in application form and only thereafter loan was sanctioned in the name of applicant. However, due to some adverse circumstances, applicant could not be able to deposit instalments of loan amount, therefore, complainant finance company without his knowledge presented cheque of applicant with bank for clearance which got dishonoured due to adverse finance condition of applicant. After dishonour of cheque, the complainant had filed a complaint case under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of competent jurisdiction on 5/3/2019. Complaint is lodged against present applicant with intent to pressurize him for getting loan amount back. He further submits that anticipatory bail application of one Satish Sahu against whom also identical allegations have been levelled by complainant finance company, was allowed by this Court vide order dtd. 16/8/2021 in M.Cr.C. (A) No.876/2021. Hence, present applicant may also be enlarged on anticipatory bail.