1 2025:CGHC:18603 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3125 of 2025 Ishwar Das Mahant S/o Mahesh Das Mahant, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village - Limgaon, Ward No. 8, Police Station - Urga, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : 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 First 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 : Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 111(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 and 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.04.25 11:57:11 +0530 2 2. The prosecution's case is based on a report lodged by Neera Sahu at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, alleging that the Chairman of Flora Foundation/Max Company, Akhilesh Singh, along with associates, collected deposits from approximately 380 women, including the complainant, by promising them either goods or fixed returns. The complainant and other women deposited Rs. 30,000/- each and initially received Rs. 2,700 per month. However, the Chairman locked the ofÏce and absconded, defrauding the women. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositor's Interest Act. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the applicant and other accused, and the case is pending trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation against the present applicant is that he was working in the company as cashier which clearly shows that the present applicant has not cheated any person but he himself is a victim who deposited some money for getting job in the company and thereafter he has been arrested by the Police in this case. Further, the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 28.11.2024. Therefore, he prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits 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, totaling 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 3 financial loss, 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 facts and circumstances of the case and the fact 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, totaling 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, 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 – Ishwar Das Mahant involved in Crime No. 517/2024 registered at Police Station : Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 111(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 and 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, rejected at this stage. 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