1 2025:CGHC:10503 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1736 of 2025 Devkrishna Sahu S/o Narad Das Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o- Ram Naga, Muktidham Road, Near Chaursiya Jewelers, Supela Bhilai P.S. Vaishali Nagar District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer City Kotwali Dhamtari District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Objector : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 437/2024, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali Dhamtari District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the complainant, Umesh Kumar Patel, filed a written complaint at Police Station RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Kotwali Dhamtari on 18.11.2024, alleging that on 28.04.2022, he learned from Peelaram Chandrakar about an online trading company named Robot Traders F.X. Limited. Subsequently, he met the co-accused, Gyanprakash Sahu, and the present applicant. The complainant was assured that he would receive a profit of 1% to 10% after investing in the company. Relying on this assurance, the complainant deposited a total of Rs. 8,67,680/- into a bank account under the name of Sanwara Enterprises, Rajasthan branch, and later into the bank account of Jangid Construction. However, he later discovered that the company had suffered losses, leading to the closure of its software. As a result, an offense under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC was registered against the present applicant and other accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the present applicant is also one of the victims as he has also invested in the company and even the applicant is neither connected with the company nor the employee of the company. He also submits that the FIR has been lodged after the delay of more than two years from the date of incident against the applicant, and there is no seizure from the present applicant whereas the complainant received entire terms and conditions in which it was mentioned that the client may suffer loss in trading but still the complainant invested and he submitted the entire documents before the station house ofÏcer. He further submits that the complainant when received profit didn’t lodged any report nor 3 reported the matter to any authority but when the complainant suffered loss in trading he lodged the FIR against the applicant. He further submits that the present applicant is in jail since 10.11.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector/complainant opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the applicant has committed fraud by taking money Rs. 8,67,680/- from the complainant with the assurance of a of 1% to 10% profit after investing in the company, however, the company suffered losses, leading to the closure of its software and failed to return the money to the complainant. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the applicant has committed fraud by taking money Rs. 8,67,680/- from the complainant with the assurance of a of 1% to 10% profit after investing in the company, however, the company suffered losses, leading to the closure of its software and failed to return the money to the complainant, but the present applicant is also one of the victims as he has also invested in the company and even the applicant is neither connected with the company nor the employee of the company, further the complainant when received 4 profit didn’t lodged any report nor reported the matter to any authority but when the complainant suffered loss in trading he lodged the FIR against the applicant and further the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 10.11.2024, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Devkrishna Sahu, involved in Crime No. 437/2024, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali Dhamtari District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on furnishing 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, 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 5 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan