1 2025:CGHC:23400 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 774 of 2025 1 - Subrat Bhattacharya S/o Late Shri Bireshwar Bhattacharya Aged About 64 Years R/o F-19 (wrongly mentioned as F 90 in the order sheet) South City Nagar-1, Near Park, Gurugram (Gudgaon), Police Station- Sector-40, District- Gurugram (Gudgaon) (Haryana), Permanent Address- 72/1 Punjabi Bag, Police Station- Punjabi Bag, Delhi West. ---Applicant. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Patewa, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) MCRCA No. 775 of 2025 1 - Subrat Bhattacharya S/o Late Shri Bireshwar Bhattacharya Aged About 64 Years R/o F-19 (Wrongly Mentioned As F- 90 In Order Sheet ) South City Nagar- 1 Near Park Gurugram (Gudgaon), Police Station Sector - 40, District - Gurugram (Gudgaon) (Haryana), Permanent Address - 72/1 Punjabi Bag, Police Station - Punjabi Bag , Delhi West. ---Applicant. Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Patewa District - Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13 15:23:36 +0530 2 MCRC A No. 776 of 2025 1 - Subrat Bhattacharya S/o Late Shri Bireshwar Bhattacharya Aged About 64 Years R/o F-19 (wrongly mentioned as F90 in the order sheet) South City Nagar-1, Near Park, Gurugram (Gudgaon), Police Station- Sector-40, District- Gurugram (Gudgaon) (Haryana), Permanent Address- 72/1 Punjabi Bag, Police Station- Punjabi Bag, Delhi West. ---Applicant. Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Patewa, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) MCRC A No. 780 of 2025 1 - Subrat Bhattacharya S/o Late Shri Bireshwar Bhattacharya Aged About 64 Years R/o F-19 (Wrongly Mentioned As F 90 In The Order Sheet) South City Nagar-1, Near Park, Gurugram (Gudgaon), Police Station- Sector-40, District- Gurugram (Gudgaon) (Haryana), Permanent Address- 72/1 Punjabi Bag, Police Station- Punjabi Bag, Delhi West. --Applicant. Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Patewa, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate. For State : Shri Arvind Dubey, GA. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 12/06/2025 3 1. The aforesaid First anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are being disposed of by this common order as the applicant in all the cases is same and he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime Nos. 148/2018, 142/2018, 149/2018, 141/2018 registered at Police Station Patewa District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 34, 120 of Indian Penal code, Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 and section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositor’s Interest Act, 2005. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that applicant being the Director of Pulse Agrotech Corporation Limited (PACL) allured various investors on the pretext of doubling their money, thereby collected huge amount from the general public, however, at the time of maturity, without returning the money as promised, closed the Bank and absconded. Based on the backdrop, aforesaid offence has been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submits that other co-accused persons namely Manohar Lal Sahu has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2018 passed in MCRCA No.1326/2018. He submits that another co-accused namely Sikendar Singh Dhillon who is one of the Directors has also been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2023 passed in MCRC No.5293/2023. At last, he would submit that considering the backdrop, applicant may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and would submit that there is a legal bar under Section 15 of the Chhattisgarh 4 Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005 for grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, applicant does not deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. For the sake of ready reference, the said section is provided as under: 15. Anticipatory bail not to be granted- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) no application for anticipatory bail shall lie for an offence punishable under the Act. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering their submissions as also facts and circumstances of the case, in particular role attributed to the present applicant who is the Director of the Company, and further considering that there is bar for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, no case is made out in favour of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, all the bail applications deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash