"1 2026:CGHC:1363 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 164 of 2026 Anil Rai S/o Rajdayal Rai Aged About 45 Years R/o C-14, Chankayapuri, Aurangabad Maharashtra. ...Applicant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Amanaka District- Raipur (C.G.). ...State/Respondent. For Applicant : Shri BP Singh and Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocates. For State/Respondent : Shri Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Shri Anjani Kumar Singh and Shri Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 09/01/2026 1. This 3rd Bail Application has been filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail with regard to Crime No.43/2022 registered at Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur CG in pending Criminal Case No.4905/2022 before JMFC Raipur, District Raipur C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120(B)/34 of the IPC. 2. Earlier, the First Bail Application filed by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed by this Court in MCRC No.3453 of 2022 vide order dated 20.06.2022 after taking into consideration certain proposals Printed from counselvise.com AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.01.09 18:36:32 +0530 2 and undertaking given by the applicant that he is willing to return the amount of Rs.3,35,08,958.91/- within four months in installments. Thereafter, the accused was released from jail in the instant case on 20th March, 2023 and thereafter, the applicant filed CRMP No.1614/2023 for relaxation of the bail conditions on 19.07.2023 and he has deposited demand draft of Rs.10,00,000/- before the trial Court on 26.07.2023. The applicant has also challenged the conditions made in the bail order by this Court vide SLP Diary No.31328/2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said SLP was withdrawn on 03.10.2023. The applicant breached the bail conditions, so a non bailable warrant was issued by the trial Court on 14.09.2023 and he was again arrested on 27.09.2023. Thereafter, the applicant further deposited amount of Rs.80,00,000/- before the trial Court on 24.11.2023 and a further proposal and schedule was proposed and Second Bail Application has also been moved by the applicant before this Court viz. MCRC No.8803 of 2023 and the same was allowed on 04.01.2024 taking into consideration the fact that applicant has already languished in jail for more than 15 months and he has already made revised proposal to fulfill the conditions to liquidate the amount in installments and also considering that criminal jurisdiction cannot be resorted if any condition could not be fulfilled by the applicant and he cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period, the Bail was allowed. Again in the revised proposal, the applicant failed to comply with the said conditions and the trial Court on 12.04.2024 issued arrest warrant in breach of bail granted by this Court in MCRC No.8803 of 2024 vide order dated 04.01.2024. Though an arrest warrant has already Printed from counselvise.com 3 been issued, however, the applicant moved SLP(Criminal) Diary No.23985 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.05.2024 with liberty to approach this Court for modification of terms and conditions of the bail order dated 04.01.2024. The applicant moved an application for modification of the Second Bail Order by way of CRMP No.1747 of 2024 and upon being asked to counsel for the applicant, he would submit that as the applicant has already been arrested, so the said petition was dismissed for non prosecution and would submit he has also deposited about Rs.5,00,000/- while filing of the CRMP No.1747 of 2024. In pursuance of non bailable warrant, the applicant was again arrested on 14.08.2025 and since then, he is behind the bars. Hence this Application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is Director of company namely Orbit Electromech India Private Limited who entered into an agreement with Director of Nirav Metals Private Limited for supply of metals and scrap material. The said transaction is purely civil transaction. He submits that due to certain contingencies, applicant failed to honor the said agreement, however, in the purely commercial transaction, a criminal case has been registered. He further submits that recently National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (for short “NCLT”) vide order 26.05.2025 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the matter of Ramesh Bokadia(Operational Creditor) vs. Orbit Electomech India Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), an order has been passed in terms of Section 14 of the IBC and arrangement has been made. Learned counsel further submits that in the Printed from counselvise.com 4 present case, applicant is behind the bars for about 21 months and offence is triable by JMFC and conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. He further submits that applicant has already deposited about 95 lakhs to the complainant till date and has also received certain scrap amounting to Rs. 25 Lakhs. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire nature of the dispute, applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has also brought to the notice of this Court that about six criminal antecedents are registered against applicant. Out of which, he has already been acquitted in two cases (Crime No.344/2021 registered at PS Bhilai and Crime No.778/2015 registered at PS Sidko Aurangabad MH). In Crime No.362/2024 registered at police station Bita-2 Greater Noida, applicant is on bail. In Crime No.217/2020 registered at Police Station Buddha Colony Patna Bihar, applicant is on bail. Crime No.832/2022 registered at PS Kotwali Patna Bihar, the Police has not contacted for the said offence. In Crime No.272/2025 registered at PS Jagdalpur, Distt Bastar, applicant is on bail. 5. Shri Anjani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Objector and Shri Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate for the State vehemently oppose the aforesaid submission. Shri Singh further submits that applicant is a habitual offender and he has practiced fraud upon the courts. He further submits that as the applicant was earlier enlarged on bail only upon giving certain proposals and undertaking for refund of the amount but he has not made any offer or proposal in the instant application to get the Printed from counselvise.com 5 bail. Learned counsel submits that he has no objection if the applicant comes with clean hands and make proposal of near about 50 Lakhs ought to be paid within stipulated time period and the balance money in installments. He further submits that when the applicant himself obtained a concessional order for securing his liberty so, only because he is behind the bars for certain period and that when the order is confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this is not a good case to exercise the bail jurisdiction in favour of such nature of applicant and the same amounts to miscarriage of justice and will also set a wrong precedent for such nature of habitual offenders. He further submits that earlier, the applicant had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking modification of the terms and conditions of the bail order vide SLP(Criminal) Diary No.23985/2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court. Thereafter, the Objector had also moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court for modification of the Court order vide Misc. Application No.494/2025, which was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the contentions before the High Court, in the event, the accused makes an application for modification of the conditions of the bail order. Thus, the applicant has obtained the liberty by way of fraud and suppression of material facts before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that as the applicant has already been arrested, the modification application (CRMP No.1747 of 2024) was rendered infructuous and it was dismissed as having become infructuous. He would further submit that before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Miscellaneous Application No.494 of 2025, Printed from counselvise.com 6 the petitioner has provided a list of cases against Orbit Electromech Pvt Ltd (Anil Rai-applicant herein) and as per the said list, nine criminal cases and five civil cases are registered against the said company as well as accused before the NCLT. Taking into consideration, the aforesaid facts, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail in the absence of any modification of the earlier bail order or any subsequent development. 6. It is well settled that a person cannot be detained in the custody for an indefinite period. Incarceration of accused/applicant amounts to pre-trial detention. In appropriate cases, it amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Agarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement {2022 SCC OnLine SC 1748}, Amarjeet Sharma vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office {SLP (Crl.) 6921/2023 decided on 10.10.2023}; Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha {2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109}; and very recently in Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement {2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920}. Delay in trial and continuous incarceration are factors which have always weighed with the Supreme Court while exercising the bail jurisdiction. 7. In the instant case, the applicant is languishing in jail for about 21 months and the offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the punishment is to be awarded by the JMFC; the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time; the insolvency proceeding has already been initiated by the Competent Authority against the company and merely because the applicant has Printed from counselvise.com 7 violated certain undertaking/ proposal given earlier before this Court to settle the score and to get the liberty, this Court is of the considered view that a good case is made out in favour of the applicant for grant of bail. 9. Accordingly, the Application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said Court. 10. It is made clear that the applicant shall also furnish the details of movable and immovable properties held by him and their family members viz. wife & dependent children and shall not alienate the immovable property without the prior permission of the competent Court/Tribunal. 11.After the dictation is over, Shri Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate appearing for the Objector, makes a request to keep the aforesaid order in abeyance for a further period of four months. 12.After considering the nature of dispute and also considering the entire facts situation of the case, this Court has granted bail to the applicant and therefore, the request made by learned counsel for the Objector cannot be accepted in the absence of any legal provision in this regard. Accordingly, the request made by the learned counsel for the Objector is rejected. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash Printed from counselvise.com "