1 2025:CGHC:21701 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3652 of 2025 Ravinder Singh S/o Bakshish Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o. House No. 04/c, Cross Street No. 11, Sector 06, Civic Center, Bhiali Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Purani Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.05.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No.44/2025, registered at Police Station Purani Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 420 and 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, the complainant Kamal AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Kumar has lodged written report that he is the proprietor of Shree Shayam chemical and his company is situated at 12/1 heavy Industries region Hathkhoj, Bhilai and the present applicant was working as the marketing and recovery agent for his company and his company had to take money of sum of Rs.6,57,914/- in exchange of selling goods from the Sudharshan Metalix and Rs.11,35,211/- from R.C. Aluminium and Rs.26,55,252/- as private transaction outstanding amount from the R.C. Aluminium company and the responsibility to recover all these amount was on the present applicant and when the complainant has asked about the recovery from the aforesaid firms, then the applicant has stated that the father of the owner of Sudharshan Metalix was in the hospital and after his recovery, the owner of the sudharshan metalix will pay the amount and when the complainant has asked about the payment of the R.C. Aluminium, then applicant has stated that the owner of the said firm met with an accident. Therefore, his payment would be after some time, and by the version of the present applicant, the complainant has some doubt therefore, he has directly approached the Director of both the companies and they stated that they had cleared all the outstanding amount to the present applicant and nothing is left to give. Then the complainant has asked from the present applicant about the money and then the present applicant has admitted that he has taken all the money from the two companies and by which he has cleared his personal debt and he will give back all the 3 amount within 10 days and when the present applicant has not given the money back to the complainant and by impersonating Gitesh Gill and Naveen Sharma as the owner of the Sudharshan metalix and R.C. aluminium company the present applicant has deceived to the complainant, the complainant registered the case against the applicant. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is true that the present applicant was working as the marketing and recovery agent for the company of the complainant, but he has not taken any money from the Sudharashan metalix and from the R.C.Aluminium company and the payment was always done in bill issued by the company thus how without issuing of bill by the company of the complainant, the aforesaid two companies could pay the entire amount to the present applicant. He also argued that the two co-accused of this case have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the learned trial court vide order dated 11/03/2025, and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. Lastly, applicant is languishing in jail since 07.03.2025 and though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that so far as other co-accused persons who have been released on bail are concerned, their 4 names were not mentioned in the FIR and the present applicant is the main accused in the crime in question. Applicant made Gitesh Gill and Naveen Sharma talk to the complainants by introducing them as the owners of the company and together the accused have defrauded Sudarshan Metallics Company, Raipur of Rs.6,57,914/-, personal transactions of Rs.11,35,211/- and RC Aluminium Company, Hathkhoj of Rs. 26,55,252/-, total amounting to Rs. 44,48,377-, as such, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the bail application of the applicant. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the present applicant made Gitesh Gill and Naveen Sharma talk to the complainants by introducing them as the owners of the company and together the accused have defrauded Sudarshan Metallics Company, Raipur of Rs.6,57,914/-, personal transactions of Rs.11,35,211/- and RC Aluminium Company, Hathkhoj of Rs. 26,55,252/-, total amounting to Rs. 44,48,377/-, further so far as co-accused persons who have been granted bail are concerned, they were not named in the FIR, whereas, present applicant is named in the FIR, as such, though the charge-sheet has been filed and applicant is languishing in jail since 07.03.2025, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Therefore, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused – 5 Ravinder Singh involved in Crime No.44/2025, registered at Police Station Purani Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 420 and 34 of the IPC, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office 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 Akhil