Station Rudri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O P.S. Balod, District Balo
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:26343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4688 of 2025 Rekhram @ Lekhram Kunjam S/o Nirupram Kunjam Aged About 27 Years R/o Road Kasawahi, Police Station Rudri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O P.S. Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
amounting to ₹36,13,000/- against these women. Prima facie, the case appears to be of a serious nature and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the accused, in collusion with other co-accused, induced rural women with promises of commission to form groups by going from village to village and then facilitated loans in their names from various banks, one after the other and without repaying the EMIs, the accused kept the entire loan amount and committed fraud amounting to ₹36,13,000/- against these women moreover, considering the fact that the co-accused namely Sarita and Shyama Bai, who have been granted bail by this Court only on the ground that she is lady thus, involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence appears to be reasonable and the alleged crime pertains to fraud, which is of a serious nature and such incidents are increasing rapidly, severely impacting not only the economy but also the banking system, hence, this Court does not find a fit case to released the applicant. 7 Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Rekhram @ 5 Lekhram Kunjram involved in Crime No.612/2024, registered at Police Station – Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., is rejected. 8 Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9 OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal
Arguments
: Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.06.2025 1 The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.612/2024, registered at Police Station – Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. (correspondence section in IPC is 420, 120-B and 34) 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that it is alleged that the 2 main-accused Kholbahra Nishad came to the house of the complainant Bhamin Kunjam and advised her to constitute a group of 3 to 4 women and with the help of Kholbehra Nishad they have got some loan for the name of the said group from the bank and when the loan amount has been sanctioned to the group, the said Kholbahara has invested the 90% of the loan amount in a scheme and gave the remaining 10% amount as commission to the member of the said group and so far as the aforesaid 90% of the amount is concerned, some installment has been paid by the said Kholbahra and with the aforesaid scheme according to the investigation, a sum of Rs. 36,13,000/-received by the said Kholbahra and returned back the amount of Rs. 5,13,000/- as a installment of the said beneficiary who has got the loan from the bank and according to the memorandum of the Kholbahra, he has invested rest amount in the sister concern who has been run by the friend of the Kholbahra namely Rakesh Kumar Jangde and Devanand Sonwani but due to financial crisis when some loss has been occurred in the aforesaid finance scheme, the Kholbehra was unable to deposit the installment, then on the basis of the report of the complainant the offence has been registered against the Kholbahra and the others co-accused persons and the charge-sheet has been filed for the alleged commission of offence and during the investigation it has come into the fact that the present applicant was working as an employee under the main-accused and he has not received any amount from the complainant and as he is not the beneficiary. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is 3 innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that applicant’s name has not been mentioned in the FIR and during the investigation the police has arrayed him as accused only on the basis of the memorandum of the main accused and in his memorandum, he has admitted that he used to pay Rs. 10,000/- as salary per month to the present applicant. He also submits that the prosecution has arrested the applicant only on the basis of the memorandum of other co-accused. There is no any direct or indirect evidence against present applicant which connect the applicant from the above mentioned offences further, nothing has been seized from the possession of the present applicant and the applicant has no knowledge about the bank transaction through unknown sources. He further submits that in various police station, several complainants have lodged report against the main accused and other employees of the Kholbahra and further the fact that the co- accused namely Smt. Sarita Kariyam, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3053/2025, vide order dated 09.05.2025 and the case of the applicant is similar to that of the co- accused and the applicant is in jail since 06.03.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4 On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the accused, in collusion with other co-accused, induced rural women with promises of commission to form groups by going from village to village and then facilitated loans in their 4 names from various banks, one after the other. Without repaying the EMIs, the accused kept the entire loan amount and committed fraud