Raj Bahadur Singh S/o Late K Hari Singh Aged About 69 Years R/o- 1/450 v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Vishrampur, District- Surajpur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:10510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1714 of 2025 Raj Bahadur Singh S/o Late K Hari Singh Aged About 69 Years R/o- 1/450 Mini L.I.G. Suhag Nagar, Sector No. 1, Firozabad, (U.P.) ... Applicant(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Vishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Smt. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04/03/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 149/2023 registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 2 5, 6 of Prize Chit Fund and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act and Section 10 of Protection of Depositors Interests Act of C.G. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Mineshwar Prasad Rajwade, the complainant, filed a complaint before District Collector, Surajpur, alleging that Abhivap Producer Company Limited had fraudulently induced him to invest in the company with promises of tripling his investment within a year. Despite the maturity period having passed, the company failed to return his investment. Following the complaint, an FIR was registered, and an investigation was conducted. The investigation revealed that the Company's branch ofÏce was located at 5-1-29, R.C. Vyas Colony, Bhilwada, Rajasthan. During the investigation, several co-accused individuals were arrested from Bhilwada on 06.12.2024. After obtaining transit remand, they were produced before the Court on 09.12.2024. The present applicant was subsequently arrested on 19.02.2025, hence the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that five of the similarly situated co- accused persons, namely, Dinendra Kumar Dadhich, Anant Dadhich, Kapil Jain, Mahesh Kumar Sen and Vinodchandra Somchand Shah have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025 and 03.03.2025 in MCRC Nos.8892/2024 and 1643/2025. The applicant is in jail since 19.02.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its 3 conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons had fraudulently induced the complainant to invest in the company with promises of tripling his investment within a year and later on failed to return his investment, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 19.02.2025, the fact that though the applicant and other co- accused persons were alleged to have fraudulently induced the complainant to invest in the company with promises of tripling his investment within a year and later on failed to return his investment, but five of the co-accused persons, namely, Dinendra Kumar Dadhich, Anant Dadhich, Kapil Jain, Mahesh Kumar Sen and Vinodchandra Somchand Shah have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025 and 03.03.2025 in MCRC Nos.8892/2024 and 1643/2025 and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused persons, further he has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant-Raj Bahadur Singh, involved in Crime No. 4 149/2023 registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120- B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 5, 6 of Prize Chit Fund and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act and Section 10 of Protection of Depositors Interests Act of C.G, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of 5 statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil