Vibha Verma D/o Shri Lekhram Verma Aged About 24 Years R/o Gram And Post v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker C.G
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6293 of 2025 Vibha Verma D/o Shri Lekhram Verma Aged About 24 Years R/o Gram And Post Siltara, P.S. Dharsiwa, Tehsil- Dharsiwa, Raipur (Tehsil- Dharsiwa And Raipur Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order), District Raipur C.G. --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker C.G. --- Respondent(s) MCRC No. 6297 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
Pooja Yadav D/o Shri Kheduram Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Aabadipara, Gram Panchayat - Silghat, Tehsil - Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.) Currently Residing At - Near Agrasen Chowk, Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Kanker, District- North Bastar (Kanker) (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.08.2025 1. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Applications under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 103/2025, registered at Police Station Kanker, District- North Bastar (Kanker) (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120(B), 34 of the IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the C.G. Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2005. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, complainant Manoj Sinha submitted a written complaint to the effect that people associated with RV Company, Ambikapur and Sparsh Advisors Private Limited Raipur, who are called connectors, identify people in their vicinity who need a loan but do not get any on salary basis or who already have a loan running, assure them of getting a loan after closing it. The said company has a setup with banks and finance companies like HDFC, ICICI, Bandhan, Axis, IDFC, Yes, Kotak etc. After getting loan the company lures people to invest 50% of the loan amount in their company with assurance that the company will 3 pay your installments for 5-6 years. Money transactions were done from the accounts of Manoj Pradhan, Surendra Singh Kariyam of RV Company Ambikapur, Abhay Kumar Gupta and Ragiv Hussain of RV Company Raipur. Manoj was the main lender of the company. The Complainant alleges that he has been defrauded to the tune of Rs. 1,37,500/- by the accused persons named in the FIR. Similarly, a fraud of about Rs 3,72,50,327/- was committed by the co-accused persons who were Directors/Partners of RV Company, Ambikapur and Sparsh Advisors Private Limited Raipur, from other persons too. Thereafter, the case was registered and the applicants were arrested. Hence these bail applications. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are low paid employee (Sales Executive) of Spash Advisor Pvt. Ltd. and are neither Director or Partner of the R.V Group or Spash Advisor Pvt. Ltd. in which the complainants or other persons have invested money and the applicants have no role in the crime as alleged by the police. Further, from the perusal of the FIR it is crystal clear that the applicants have not been named in the array of accused persons as the allegation made by the complainant is against the Owner/partners of R.V Group or Spash Advisor Pvt. Ltd. of defrauding them to invest by taking loan. Also, on similar allegation, already an FIR has been lodged before P.S. City Kotwali Raipur against the present applicants, but the Police has registered 4 a separate FIR in Kanker instead of registering the complaint in the same FIR. It is further submitted that this Hon'ble Court has already granted bail to the present applicant for the case registered in Raipur vide order dated 25.07.2025 in MCRC/5831/2025. Lastly, the applicants are young girls, languishing in jail since 11.04.2025 and though the charge-sheet has already been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail applications of the applicants but could not dispute that the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed and further on similar allegation, already an FIR has been lodged before P.S. City Kotwali Raipur against the present applicants, in which, this Hon'ble Court has already granted bail to the present applicants vide order dated 25.07.2025 in MCRC/5831/2025. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that applicants are low paid employee (Sales Executive) of Spash Advisor Pvt. Ltd. and are neither Director or Partner of the R.V Group or Spash Advisor Pvt. Ltd. in which the complainants or other persons have invested money, further, on similar allegation, already an FIR has been lodged before P.S. City Kotwali Raipur against the present applicants, in which, they have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2025 in MCRC/5831/2025 also, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicants are young girls languishing in jail since 5 11.04.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 6. Let applicants, Vibha Verma and Pooja Yadav, involved in Crime No. 103/2025, registered at Police Station Kanker, District- North Bastar (Kanker) (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120(B), 34 of the IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the C.G. Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2005, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants 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 applicants 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, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is issued and the applicants 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 Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya 6 Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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. 7. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice