Kushboo Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

As both these applications arise out of the same incident and crime number, i.e. Crime No. 22/2023 registered at P.S.- Torwa, District-Bilaspur(CG), they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

These are the first bail applications filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of anticipatory bail, who have apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 22/2023, registered at Police Station– Torwa, District Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467,468 read with Section 34 IPC.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, are that on 10.01.2023 complainant Rakhi Khanna lodged the written complainant in Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur alleging that his son Akash Khanna was admitted in Prime Cricket Academy for taking training in cricket. It is alleged that the applicants have allured the local residents to participate their children for playing cricket in their academy with an impression that they were helping the students to grow their life in the filed of cricket and they will be selected in under-14, under-16 and under-23 aged team. They have taken the money through cash as well as UPI transaction. It is also alleged that the applicants have issued forged letter of Baldev Singh, Minister of Sports of Chhattisgarh Government as well as forged signtaure of GD Gupta, Secretary Ministry of Sport. They have also issued forged letter indicating that selection of complainant’s son in T-10 world cup cricket to be held at Malasiya. This letter has been issued to all the parents. It is alleged that the applicants on the assurance of selection and for providing cricket kit have cheated many persons and received Rs. 14,000,00/- from the complainant, Rs, 4,10,000/- from Sangram Singh Rajput, Rs. 12,70,000/- from Manjusha Lal, Rs. 2,50,000/- from Aryan Chavda, Rs. 7,000,00/- Shilu Parichha, Rs. 7,00,000/- from Ajay Kumar, Rs. 5,00,000/- from Anil Paroha, Rs. 6,60,000/- from Subodh Dubey, Rs. 15,800/- from Jai Prakash Prashad, Rs. 2,43,600/- from Mukesh Pandey and received total Rs. 61,49,400 from the complainants. Later on, neither the children of these persons were provided any opportunity to participate in any State Level Cricket Tournaments or in IPL nor money was refunded to the complainants. On the basis of the written complaint, FIR has been lodged against the applicants.

In MCRCA No. 1231 of 2023

Learned Sr. counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the crime in question only on the personal enmity. He would further submit that there is no any direct or indirect role of the applicant with the working, management or transaction of the crickets academy and applicant Anjul Dua returned Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant through DD No. 758571 dated 16.05.2023 and there is no allegation against her in the entire FIR. The main accused namely Sunni Dua was granted regular bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court and would pray for releasing the applicant on bail.

In MCRCA No. 1021 of 2023

He would submit that the applicant namely Kushboo Singh is the proprietor of the shop named cricket goods to which she has made cash and online transactions with the co-accused Sanni Dua. He would further submit that the present applicant has sold the sport materials to the complainant’s son and all the transactions relate to sale of the sport material and has no nexus with the money transacation between Sannu Dua and the complainant. He would further submit that demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made by the Investigation Officer and to that effect records are available. The applicant to substantiate his submission has also annexed the bills of sale and would submit that prima-facie, no case is made out against the applicant and would pray for allowing the bail application.

On the other hand, counsel for the State as well as counsel for the objector would object the application for grant of anticipatory bail and would submit that the applicants in connivance with other co-accused persons, who are absconding, cheated the local people and on assurance given by present applicant, the complainant and other persons have made transactions and also handed over cash amount, total amount of Rs. 61,49,400/- to the present applicant and other co-accused persons. Counsel for the objector would further submit that there is direct transaction with the applicant Khusboo Singh and the amount which has been shown in the bill is less than the transaction made between the complainant and the applicants. To substantiate this submission, she has submitted watsup chat of the applicant and would submit that applicants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the material placed on record against applicant Kushboo Singh wherein the watsup chat has been produced by the complainants, prima-facie, it reflects that the huge transactions have been made with the applicants and the bills are old one or having less value than the amount. The material collected by the I.O. in the case diary would praima-facie reflect that lots of financial transactions have been done in the account of the applicant Kushboo Singh which prima-facie reflects the involvement of the applicant. The submission made by counsel for the applicant that she has received the payment for sale of the goods or not is a matter of evidence which cannot be considered while granting anticipatory bail. Thus, bail application filed by the Kushboo Singh deserves to be rejected.

So far as the case of applicant Anjul Dua is concerned, the submission made by learned Sr. counsel for the applicant is that the husband of the applicant has recieved Rs. 3,77,000 and Rs. 5,00,000/- while granting regular bail has been paid to the complainant and would submit that the applicant has already made good default, therefore, she may be released on anticipatory bail.

This submission was vehemently was objected by the State as well as the Objector. The case diary would demonstrate that the allegation levelled against the applicant’s husband pertains to Rs. 61,49,400 which has not been refunded to the complainants. The submission made by learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has deposited the Rs. 3,77,000/- which cannot be ground to grant anticipatory bail as the complainants were defrauded by the huge amount and only Rs. 5,00,000/- has been returned to one of the complainant but other complainants are still deprived from their amount, as such, prima-facie, involvement of the applicant is there, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.

Accordingly, the applications filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of Khusboo Singh and Anjul Dua, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.