Nafr High Court
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:16699 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2713 of 2025 Dilip Sahu S/o Shri Narotam Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Pharhada Near Shivaji Chowk, P.S. Kharora District Raipur Chhattisgarh Present Address Block No. 13, House No. 10 B.S.U.P Colony Near Narindrive Telibandha Ravigram Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Kansabel District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. (through V.C.) For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this case have been taken through video conferencing. 2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 95/2023 registered at Police Station- Kansabel, District- Jashpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120 of IPC and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Ke Nikshepakon Ke 2 Hiton ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam 2005. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.07.2023, the complainant Sainath Singh lodge the written report before the police station- Kansabel alleging therein that in the year 2013, one George Farnadiz, Anand Singh & Lachhundar Ram Bage came in his house and enticed the applicant for doubling his investment in the Saideep Future Estate Developer India Ltd. Corporate Co. Branch Raipur and on the basis of enticed, complainant was deposited Rs 50,000/- and after receiving the amount from the complainant, the accused persons did not return the invested amount to the complainant and have committed breach of trust with him. On the basis of written complaint lodged by the complainant, the concerned police registered the crime against the directors of the said company and other employee and arrested the present applicant and after completing of investigation, police filed the charge sheet before the competent Court on 19.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that as per F.I.R, no any allegation against the present applicant about receiving the amount from complainant. The present applicant is not a director of Saideep Future Estate Developer India Ltd. Corporate Co. Branch Raipur, wherein he has working as peon of his ofÏce therefore no direct or indirect involvement of the present applicant in the present case. He further submits that as per written complaint, only allegation against the Agent of Saideep Future Estate Developer India Ltd. Corporate Co. 3 Branch Raipur namely George Farnadiz, Anand Singh & Lachhundra Ram Bage therefore looking to the entire averment in the written complaint, no role of the present applicant in the present case and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that as per complaint, no any allegation against the present applicant in respect of his involvement as a promoter, partner, investor, manager or employee responsible for conduct of the financial establishment, management, business or any activity involved in the above case and further no any amount has been received by the applicant from the complainant. The present applicant is aged about 40 years and he is in jail since 21.01.2025 and charge sheet has already been filed therefore looking to the facts and circumstance of this case, this Court may kindly be please to consider the bail application of the present applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court further from perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the complainant, Sainath Singh, alleged that the company's agents promised him to double his money in five years and collected money from him and several other individuals. Thereafter, the said company allegedly closed down and absconded with lakhs of rupees. Only the applicant/accused Dilip Sahu has been arrested, while the other accused directors, Naresh Kumar Sahu and Kalu Singh Verma, are still absconding and further the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent of similar nature, in which, he is on 4 bail. Hence, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 21.01.2025 and the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has only one criminal antecedent of similar nature, in which he is on bail and no further interrogation is required and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Let the applicant – Dilip Sahu involved in Crime No. 95/2023 registered at Police Station- Kansabel, District- Jashpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120 of IPC and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Ke Nikshepakon Ke Hiton ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam 2005, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 5 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 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. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - Kunal S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice