Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4438 of 2025 Raju Singh S/o Harpal Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Emlidaggu, Bypass Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant For Non-applicant/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.06.2025 1. 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. 585/2024 registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act. 2. According to the prosecution's case, on 04.02.2024, Akhilesh Singh ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.14 12:09:08 +0530 2 opened the ofÏce of Flora Max Company in Pritam Pride Complex, Swami Chowk, Mahasamund. The applicant, being the treasurer, allegedly lured innocent women into depositing Rs. 30,000/- each for small businesses, introducing himself as the company's agent through other female accused. When the women couldn't arrange the funds, loans were obtained from banks, and goods were arranged by Akhilesh Singh. The applicant allegedly promised a monthly salary of Rs. 2,700/- inducing women to invest, with amounts deposited into the account of Gudiya Singh (the applicant/accused) in the name of Flora Max Company. It's alleged that conspiracy, fraud, and embezzlement were committed. After investigation, a case was registered, and a charge-sheet was filed. 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 the applicant is brother of co- accused, Akhilesh Singh, who is the main accused / director of company and had kept the income generated from these shops for himself and did not pay the women their monthly dues of Rs.2,700/-. Moreover, the accused allegedly obtained a loan of Rs.49,50,000/- in the village women through fraudulent means. He also submits that co- accused, Gudiya Devi and Manju Chauhan have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.04.2025 & 02.01.2025 in MCRC Nos.2647/2025 & 8976/2024. The applicant is in jail since 24.01.2025, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has four criminal antecedents, out of which, against three cases applicant has preferred bail applications bearing MCRC Nos. 4440/2025, 4453/2024, 4454/2025, which are also listed 3 today, further charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. He further submits that the accused, alongwith others, formed groups of 10 women each, totaling around 165 women, and obtained loans of Rs.30,000/- each from various banks for their business. These women's groups were made to operate shops at different locations, and daily transactions were carried out. However, the director of the company, Akhilesh Singh, kept the income generated from these shops and did not pay the women their monthly salary of Rs. 2,700/-. Moreover, the accused allegedly obtained a loan of Rs. 49,50,000/- in the names of these women through fraudulent means, further applicant has four criminal antecedents of identical nature, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 24.01.2025, the fact that though the applicant, his brother, Akhilesh Singh and other co-accused persons were allegedly formed a group of 165 women to operate shops at different locations, and obtained loans of Rs.30,000/- each from various banks for their business and later on kept the income generated from these shops and did not pay the 5. 6. 4 women their monthly salary of Rs. 2,700/-, by this they obtained a loan of Rs. 49,50,000/- in their names through fraudulent means, but the main accused in present case is Akhilesh Singh, who committed the alleged act, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has four criminal antecedents, out of which, against three cases applicant has preferred bail applications bearing MCRC Nos. 4440/2025, 4453/2024, 4454/2025, which are also listed today and the same are allowed today itself by this Court, further charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant-Raju Singh, involved in Crime No. 585/2024 registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 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 court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, 5 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. 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 Abhishek