1 2025:CGHC:18604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3131 of 2025 Santosh Das Manikpuri S/o Sukrit Das Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Rogda, P.S. Navagarah, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Police Station Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Ayachi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.04.2025 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 517/2024 registered at Police Station : Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 111(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 and 10 of Protection of Depositors Interest Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, in brief, is that the present applicant was PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.04.25 11:57:11 +0530 2 working as manager of Flora Max Service Private Limited Company was fraudulently taking 30,000/- Rs from 2700 peoples of Champa and nearby villages and guaranteed them to return 2700/- Rs per month and commission as well. While this incident applicant along with other co- accused committed fraud of Rs 8,10,00,000 and then absconded by closing the ofÏce of the said company. As per the memorandum statement of the present applicant, he was first appointed as a manager and later he started working on the field with other people and took Rs 30,000/- Rs each from 130 people and deposited it in the company and in this regard, he has also received eight lakh commission, the account of which is said to be kept in the register and laptop. The applicant/accused Santosh Das along with company directors Akhilesh Singh and Raju Singh was involved in the said crime, on the basis of which a case under sections 318(2), 318(4), 111(1), 3(5) BNS and sections 6, 10 of the Protection of Depositor's Interests Act has been registered against the applicant/accused and others and a charge-sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2025 passed in MCRC No. 1825/2025 on merits. He further submits that only on the ground which has been pressed by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of the second bail application is that 11 ladies who are also co-accused have been granted bail by the Sessions Court and though they were wanted in four Districts in criminal cases and so far as the applicant is concerned, it is stated till date no charges have been framed but no order-sheet has been annexed with the bail application. and it is stated that applicant is in jail since 28.11.2024 and the charge- sheet has been submitted. Therefore, he prays that the applicant may be 3 enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the first bail application was rejected on merits on the ground that the applicant along with other co-accused person had lured the complainant and other surrounding villagers with promises of high profits and commissions, collection Rs. 30,000/- per person from approximately 2,700/- people, totalling Rs. 8,10,00,000/-, they promised to pay RS. Rs. 2,700/- per month and commission but instead absconded after closing the company’s ofÏce, causing them great financial loss to complainant and other persons, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact and circumstances of the case and the fact that the first bail application was rejected by this Court on the ground that the applicant along with other co-accused person had lured the complainant and other surrounding villagers with promises of high profits and commissions, collection Rs. 30,000/- per person from approximately 2,700/- people, totalling Rs. 8,10,00,000/-, they promised to pay Rs. 2,700/- per month and commission but instead absconded after closing the company’s ofÏce, causing them great financial loss to complainant and other persons, further it is a case of fraud, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Santosh Das Manikpuri involved in Crime No. 517/2024 registered at Police Station : Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 111(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 and 10 of Protection of Depositors Interest Act, rejected at this stage. 4 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. The OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti