1 2025:CGHC:23836 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4454 of 2025 Raju Singh S/o- Harpal Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o- Emliduggu, Bypass Road, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Dharamjaigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy G.A Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13/06/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 283/2024 registered at Police Station Dharamjaigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 336, 338, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 6 & 10 of Chhattisgarh AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Protection of Depositors Interest Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused, in collusion with other accused persons, opened a branch of A Flora Max Company in Nichepara, Dharmjaygarh, and enticed investors to invest in various businesses under the self-employment scheme, promising high returns. The accused proposed various business ventures and formed groups of 165 women, including the complainant, Balkumari. They obtained loans from various banks in the names of these women and fraudulently collected Rs.30,000/- from each investor. The accused, Akhilesh Singh, operated shops for business purposes using these women's groups and retained the income generated from the shops. The investors were promised Rs.2,700 per month as salary, but no payments were made. The investigation reveals that A Flora Max Financial Establishment failed to inform the competent authority, the District Magistrate, about its business operations within two months of the commencement of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interests Act, 2005. The accused has been charged as aforementioned and subsequently, he was arrested. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the applicant is brother of co- accused, Akhilesh Singh, who is the main accused / director of company and had kept the income generated from these shops for himself and did not pay the women their monthly dues of Rs.2,700/-. 3 Moreover, the accused allegedly obtained a loan of Rs.49,50,000/- in the village women through fraudulent means. He also submits that co-accused, Gudiya Devi and Manju Chauhan have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.04.2025 & 02.01.2025 in MCRC Nos.2647/2025 & 8976/2024. The applicant is in jail since 24.01.2025, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has four criminal antecedents, out of which, against three cases applicant has preferred bail applications bearing MCRC Nos. 4440/2025, 4453/2025 and 4438/2025, which are also listed today, further charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. She further submits that the accused, alongwith others, formed groups of 10 women each, totaling around 165 women, and obtained loans of Rs.30,000/- each from various banks for their business. These women's groups were made to operate shops at different locations, and daily transactions were carried out. However, the director of the company, Akhilesh Singh, kept the income generated from these shops and did not pay the women their monthly salary of Rs. 2,700/-. Moreover, the accused allegedly obtained a loan of Rs. 49,50,000/- in the names of these women through fraudulent means, further applicant has four criminal antecedents of identical 4 nature, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 24.01.2025, the fact that though the applicant, his brother, Akhilesh Singh and other co-accused persons were allegedly formed a group of 165 women to operate shops at different locations, and obtained loans of Rs.30,000/- each from various banks for their business and later on kept the income generated from these shops and did not pay the women their monthly salary of Rs. 2,700/-, by this they obtained a loan of Rs. 49,50,000/- in their names through fraudulent means, but the main accused in present case is Akhilesh Singh, who committed the alleged act, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has four criminal antecedents, out of which, against three cases applicant has preferred bail applications bearing MCRC Nos. MCRC Nos. 4440/2025, 4453/2025 and 4438/2025, which are also listed today and the same are allowed today itself by this Court, further charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant-Raju Singh, involved in Crime No. 283/2024 registered at Police Station Dharamjaigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 336, 338, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 6 & 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, be 5 released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of 6 statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil