Sant Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Ramanujganj, Dist.- Balrampur

Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate Mr. Ajay Pandey, GA Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 24/07/2025

Heard on objection raised by the Registry in respect of non- compliance of the provision of Section 16(2) of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005.

The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.04.2025 in CRA No.704/2025 observed as under:-

…………………………………………………………… the provisions …………….Having considered contained in Section 6 to 13 of the CPDI Act, 2005, it is found that Act has been mainly enacted to protect 2 interest of investors and obtain money from the property of financial establishments, who have cheated the investors. The Act also provides provision to attach property of the financial establishment by the District Magistrate/Competent Authority and make it absolute from Special Court. Though sub-Section (1) of Section 16 of the CPDI Act, 2005 provides that an appeal against the order passed by the Special Court shall lie to the High Court within 30 days from the date of order and sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the CPDI Act, 2005 provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of 75% deposit of liability with competent authority, but in considered opinion of this Court, sub- Section (2) of Section 16 of the CPDI Act, 2005 is applicable in respect of the order passed by the Competent Authority/Special Court with regard to the attachment of properties and not with regard to the criminal case registered against the person. Therefore, the default(s) as raised by the Registry is waived.

In view of the above, the objection/default pointed out by the Registry is overruled.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 16(1) of C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act against the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Depositors Interest Act, whereby the anticipatory bail application of the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (New Section 482 of BNSS), 2023 has been rejected.

The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.158/2017 registered at Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. 3

This is the first bail application by way of criminal appeal. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the co-accused Ajit Kumar, Sunil Kundu and Mr. Mukesh Kumar opened a Sun Plant Agro Limited on the pretext of doubling money of the depositors, thereby got deposited huge amount from various depositors including the complainant Krishnapad Mandal and ran away. Subsequently, the present appellant was also found involved in commission of the said offence and case was registered against him also, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The present appellant is neither Director of the firm nor employees of the firm. He further submits that the main accused Girja Shankar Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.09.2022 in SLP (Crl) No.5980/2021. The co-accused Amit Kumar Chowdhary has also been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2023 in MCRC No.3408/2023. Therefore, the present appellant may also be extended privilege of anticipatory bail on the same set of evidence.

Learned counsel for the State however opposes the appeal for anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation against the appellant and further considering the fact 4 that the main accused has been extended privilege of anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the co-accused has been granted regular bail by this Court, therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant in this case also.

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with the crime in question, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigation Officer. Appellant shall be abide by the following conditions : (i) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala