1 2025:CGHC:45089 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4450 of 2025 Rajaram Tarak S/o Khorbahra Ram Tarak Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Tamasiwni, Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajim District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant(s) (Cause title taken from the case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, Advocate (Through V.C.) For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03/09/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 408/2024 registered at Police Station- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 read with Section 120B and 34 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, initially an FIR was registered under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC on the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Complaint lodged by the complainant-Santosh Dewangan against (1) Raja Ram Tarak(Present applicant), (2) Sharad Chand Sharma, (3) Kamlesh Kumar Sahu, (4) Yashwant Kumar Nag alleging therein that those persons had created fake company named "Trade Expo" and promoted the company through YouTube channel and zoom app and in the name of offering daily profit in percentage cheated the complainant and others with around Rupees 4,83,30,000/-(Four Crore, Eighty Three Lac, Thirty Thousand). During the course of investigation Section 409 and 120B of the IPC were added and co-accused Arun Dwivedi, Abhishek Singh Gaharwar and Ajay Kumar Vishwakarma were arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that neither the company, nor the YouTube Channel has been created by the applicant, nor is the applicant any beneficiary of the company and none of the bank account connected with the company has been opened by the applicant. The applicant has never been entrusted with any property nor has the applicant misappropriated the said entrusted property. On what basis the offence under Section 409 IPC is registered against the applicant is questionable. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused Yashwant Kumar Nag and Kamlesh Kumar Sahu have been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court vide [common] order dated 19- 03-2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 94/2025 and M.Cr.C. No. 299/2025. Similarly situated co-accused Sharadchand Sharma has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11-04-2025 in M.Cr.C. 3 No. 2858/2025. Further other co-accused Abhishek Singh Gaharwar and Ajay Kumar Vishwakarma who joined the company earlier then the applicant, have also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16-04-2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 2920/2025 (Annexure A/5) and 22-04- 2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 3062/2025(Annexure A/6) respectively. He lastly submits that there are 7 accused persons in total and at least 111 named witnesses therefore the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time and the relevant documents related to the company and the transaction in the account of the applicant has already been seized by the police therefore there is no need to keep the applicant in jail. Accordingly, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that from perusal of the case diary, it is reflected that the complainant, lodged a written report at Police Station Rajim stating that the applicant/accused Rajaram Tarak, Sharadchandra Sharma, Kamlesh Sahu, Yashwant Kumar Nag, and Arun Dwivedi, by luring people with the promise of higher returns through “Trade Expo Company,” collected an amount of about ₹4,83,30,000/- (Rupees Four Crore Eighty-Three Lakh Thirty Thousand only) from various persons and, with dishonest intention, committed cheating by not returning the said money. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 28.05.2025 and the recovery made from the applicant and further the fact that similarly situated co-accused Yashwant Kumar Nag and Kamlesh Kumar Sahu have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19-03-2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 94/2025 and M.Cr.C. No. 299/2025 and similarly situated co-accused Sharadchand Sharma has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11-04- 2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 2858/2025 and in the present case, charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Let the applicant – Rajaram Tarak, involved in Crime No. 408/2024 registered at Police Station- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 read with Section 120B and 34 of IPC, be 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 5 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 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. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal