Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA 2025:CGHC:29224 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5020 of 2025 • Niranjan Saxena S/o Ashok Saxena Aged About 40 Years R/o House No B-4, Near Gangotri Dhaba Modern House Building Society, Barkhedi Kala, Police Station- Barkhedi Kala, Bhopal (Mp) versus ... Applicant • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Kanker, District- Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from case Information System) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shrikant Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30/06/2025 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.127/2017 registered at Police Station Kanker, District-Kanker (C.G.) under Sections 420, 409, 34 of IPC and 4, 5 and 6 of Price Chit Fund and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 10 of C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant, being the Formal Director of Nirmal Infra Home Corporation Limited, 2 accepted deposits from various customers under different recurring/fixed deposit schemes and, in some cases, under a bond scheme. However, the amounts were not returned as promised. The company was not authorized by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) or the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to conduct such business. Therefore, offences under Sections 420, 409, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978; and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interest Act, 2005, have been alleged. 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 similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Prabal Pratap Singh Yadav, Lakhan Soni and Harish Sharma have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 22.08.2024, 02.01.2025 and 08.04.2025 in MCRC Nos. 4794/2024, 9034/2024 and 2764/2025 respectively. He further submits that the present applicant is in jail since 22.07.2022, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 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. He further submits that the applicant, who is Formal Director of Nirmal Infra Home Corporation Limited, alongwith other co-accused persons had committed fraud by accepted deposits from various customers and thereafter did not returned the amount as promised. He also submits that the said company was also not 3 authorized by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) or the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to conduct such business, 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 22.07.2022, the fact that though the applicant, who is Formal Director of Nirmal Infra Home Corporation Limited, alongwith other co-accused persons are alleged to have committed fraud by accepted deposits from various customers and later on did not returned the amount as promised, but other co-accused persons, namely, Prabal Pratap Singh Yadav, Lakhan Soni and Harish Sharma have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 22.08.2024, 02.01.2025 and 08.04.2025 in MCRC Nos. 4794/2024, 9034/2024 and 2764/2025 respectively and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the 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 –Niranjan Saxena, involved in Crime No.127/2017 registered at Police Station Kanker, District-Kanker (C.G.) under Sections 420, 409, 34 of IPC and 4, 5 and 6 of Price Chit Fund and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 10 of C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 ((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 sufficient 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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - vaishali Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice