1 2025:CGHC:28577 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 947 of 2025  Hutasan Yadav, S/o Shri Sampatti Yadav Aged About 48 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Nehrunagar, Balangir, P.S. And Distt. Balangir (Odisha) ... Appellant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station In-Charge, Police Station- Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur (M.C.B.)(C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate. For Respondent. : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 27 /06/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 16(1) of C.G. Protection of Depository Interest Act against the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Sessions Court, Baikunthpur, District Koriya whereby the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (New Section 482 of BNSS), Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE 2 2023 has been rejected. 2. The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.192/2019 registered at Police Station – Manendragarh, District (M.C.B.) (C.G.) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act and Section 10 of Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. 3. This is the second bail application by way of criminal appeal. Earlier bail application of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 28.03.2025. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Brijram Sahu made a written report alleging therein that in year 2015, the Director and Branch Manager of PICL Multi State Credit Co-operative Society came to Manendragarh and conducted a seminar and ensured that by depositing the amount they would get hefty interest. It was also alleged that complainant deposited Rs.4,50,000/- along with other peoples and when the complainant demanded his money in the year 2017, he got only assurance and accused/appellant fled away closing the office. Based on this, FIR against three persons namely Sambhunath, Buddh Singh Rana and Ravi-ul-Haq was registered and they were arrested and the other co-accused being absconded a 3 supplementary challan under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the present applicant is neither Director of the Society nor employee of the society. As per the final report, nothing incriminating has come against the appellant. He also submits that other co- accused persons namely Dhansai Baghel, Narendra Babu Komarya in MCRCA No.242/2025, Rabiul Haque, Shambhunath Pathak in MCRC No. 591/2020, 677/2020, Abdul Kayum in MCRC No.798/2025 and Daulal Nishad in MCRC No.3202/2025 have been extended privilege of bail by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2025, 23.03.2020, 29.01.2025 and 25.04.2025 respectively, therefore, the present appellant may also be extended privilege of anticipatory bail on the same set of evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the State however opposes the appeal for anticipatory bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation against the appellant and further considering the fact that other co-accused persons namely Dhansai Baghel, Narendra Babu Komarya in MCRCA No.242/2025, Rabiul Haque, Shambhunath Pathak in 4 MCRC No. 591/2020, 677/2020, Abdul Kayum in MCRC No.798/2025 and Daulal Nishad in MCRC No.3202/2025 have been extended privilege of bail by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2025, 23.03.2020, 29.01.2025 and 25.04.2025 respectively, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in this case also. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 is set aside. 9. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with the crime in question, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigation Officer. Appellant shall be abide by the following conditions : (i) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the appellant shall appear before the trial 5 Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde