Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8976 of 2024 Manju Chauhan S/o Ramswaroop Chauhan Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Sithara, P.S- Dharamjaigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh versus ... Applicant(s) State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/01/2025 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. 283/2024 registered at Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 336 and 338, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 6 and 10 of Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2 2005. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, namely, Balkumari submitted written complaint before Police Station Dharamjaigarh alleging that the complainant met with the present applicant who portrayed herself as Branch Manager and the applicant introduced the complainant to accused persons, namely, Akhilesh Singh, Raju Singh, Gudiya Singh, Balram Banjara and Shyam who are the director in the private company, namely, Flora Max Company who initiated scheme for women employment, where the women have to invest sum of Rs. 30,000/- each. The complainant was unable to deposit the amount herself so she gathered other women and they all deposited Rs. 30,000/- each and overall the company collected overall amount of Rs. 49,50,000/- from the depositors. The complainant further alleged that when the female members demanded withdrawal of their respective amount the directors of the company denied releasing the amount. Thereafter, the offence has been registered against he applicant. 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 as per the scheme of Flora Max Company, the women who wanted to be the members of company for the membership they had to deposit sum of Rs. 30,000/- and get salary of Rs. 100/- per day, thereafter, they had to sell the consumers items such as clothes and other essential products, the applicant has not received any amount from the complainant and other persons, because the complainant herself has deposited an 3 amount. He also submits that the applicant alongwith other women have lodged FIR on 20.11.2024 against the accused persons including Balram Singh alleging there they have been defrauded by the accused persons and Balram Singh. The applicant is in jail since 05.12.2024, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge- sheet has not been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. 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 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 names of these women through fraudulent means, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. Learned counsel for the objector submits that the complainant has no objection, if the present applicant has been granted bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, 4 nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 05.12.2024, the fact that though the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case, but the complainant has no objection, if the present applicant has been granted bail, also considering the fact that the applicant is lady and she has no criminal antecedent, 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. 8. Let the Applicant-Manju Chauhan, involved in Crime No. 283/2024 registered at Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 336 and 338, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 6 and 10 of Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2005, 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and 5 the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, 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 her in accordance with law. 9. 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 Akhil