1 2025:CGHC:17482 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 526 of 2025 Naveen Kumar Sharma S/o Shivjas Sharma Aged About 33 Years R/o Quarter No. 10a, Street - 27, Sector - 4, Ward No. 43, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Purani Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vedant Bhelonde, Advocate. For Non-Applicant /State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 16/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this case have been taken through video conferencing. 2. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.44/2025, registered at Police Station– Purani Bhilai District – Durg (C.G.), for the commission of offence punishable under Section 408, 420, 34 of IPC. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant on 1 May, 2019 appointed Ravindra Singh (Main Accused) as their recovery agent to KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 recover money due to his proprietorship firm namely, Shyam Chemicals. The complainant asked him to recover outstanding amounts from debtors on account of sale of goods on credit. Thereafter, the main accused recovered money from the debtors but did not submit the same with the complainant instead he used that money for making private investments and paid off his own debt from the said money. The complainant thereafter, came to know that the main accused has embezzled money to the tune of Rs. 44,48, 377/- and did not returned him even after giving assurances. The complainant then lodged FIR alleging fraud and criminal breach of trust by the main accused along with other persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if the entire allegations as narrated in FIR is believed to be true, no offence is said to have committed by the applicant as no fraudulent motive is visible on the facts and as such no prima offence is made out. Even the FIR was filed as an afterthought only to harass the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case by the complainant because he is friend of the main accused and the complainant thinks that he being the friend should pay for the mistakes of main accused. The complainant has not made any specific allegation or has stated any specific event which would attract the offences as stated in the FIR against the applicant. He also submits that no offence of fraud u/s 420 IPC is said to have committed by the applicant as is visible from the perusal of the FIR itself. It is submitted that the complainant has not raised any allegation of fraud by the applicant and investigation by the police also afÏrms the same. The applicant never induced the complainant to deliver any property so as 3 to attract the basic ingredients of the offence alleged. There is no evidence available on the record to even remotely suggest that the applicant has committed any fraud with the complainant. He is being only harassed because he is the friend of the main accused. It is noteworthy that, the applicant has not received any money from the main accused. He further contended that no offence of criminal breach of trust u/s 408 IPC is prima facie made out for the very reason that it is not the case of complainant that he entrusted any property to the applicant which was then misappropriated by him. The FIR also does not reveal or remotely suggest that the applicant either has committed any crime under the said provision or has aided the main accused in any way for misappropriation of the property. It is further submitted that section 408 IPC is applicable on clerk or servant who was entrusted with any property and the present applicants is in no way either a clerk or servant of the complainant so as to bear the brunt of aforesaid section. Hence, the benefit of non-application of aforesaid section maybe extended to the case of present applicant. He further submits that prima facie no offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 34 of IPC is made out against the applicant as is evident from the FIR itself wherein the complainant did not allege that the applicant acted in tandem with the main accused so as to cause any loss to him. The FIR did not reveal any conspiracy hatched by the applicant along with the main accused so as to attract the provisions of the said section. Accordingly, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and 4 submits that the case diary has been reviewed and prima facie, it appears that there is sufÏcient material to suggest that the applicant/accused, in collusion with the main accused, Ravinder Singh, have committed fraud worth approximately ₹44 lakhs with the complainant. Given to the seriousness of the offence, granting anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused does not seem appropriate. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the case diary has been reviewed and prima facie, it appears that there is sufÏcient material to suggest that the applicant/accused, in collusion with the main accused, Ravinder Singh, have committed fraud worth approximately ₹44 lakhs with the complainant, looking to the seriousness of the offence, granting anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused does not seem appropriate, thus I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Naveen Kumar Sharma, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS involved in Crime No.44/2025, registered at Police Station–Purani Bhilai District – Durg (C.G.), for the commission of offence punishable under Section 408, 420, 34 of IPC., is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal