1 2025:CGHC:35564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1086 of 2025 Sudesh Ekka S/o Shri Sangam Ekka, Aged About 42 Years Occupation Trading R/o Navapara P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Gandhinagar Dehat Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 23 / 07 /20 25 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.348/2025, registered at Police Station Gandhinagar Dehat Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code. (In short, IPC). RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, an FIR was lodged by the complainant, Preeti Sidar, alleging that in the year 2022, co-accused Manoj Pradhan and others, including the present applicant, opened an entity named R.V. Group through Spash Advisory Pvt. Ltd. and offered the complainant financial assistance in the form of a bank loan, assuring that 50% of the loan amount would be invested in trading by R.V. Group and, in return, the complainant would receive benefits and the loan EMIs would be repaid by them. However, in October 2024, the repayment of EMIs was stopped, and bank officials started visiting the complainant demanding repayment of the loan amount. It is further alleged that the complainant’s documents were misused, that no loan was ever personally taken by them, and that even certain bank officials were involved in the offence. In this manner, the accused persons are alleged to have cheated about 140 persons, including the complainant, to the tune of approximately ₹50 crore, leading to the registration of the present offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person who has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime. He further submits that the present applicant has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged offences. The complainants themselves invested 50% of the loan amount in the trading scheme and retained the remaining 50% after availing loans from the bank. As per the scheme, the EMIs were duly repaid by the accused from 2022 until October 2024, but due to trading losses, 3 repayment stopped, leading to disputes and false allegations against the company. The complaint is self-contradictory, as on one hand it claims the complainant was offered the scheme and invested 50% in trading with assurance of EMI repayment, while on the other hand it alleges that bank officials were involved and no loan was ever applied for, which itself reflects falsity and an attempt to evade repayment. He furher submits that the applicant has no direct role in the alleged offence, as evident from his bank statements showing only personal investments; he is neither a director nor an agent of the company and has been falsely implicated merely due to his independent trading activities. Hence he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant, along with co-accused, formed R.V. Group through Spash Advisory Pvt. Ltd., induced the complainant and others to take bank loans promising investment and repayment of EMIs, but later stopped repayment in October 2024. It is alleged that documents were misused, nearly 140 persons were cheated of about ₹50 crore, and given the gravity and magnitude of the offence, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation made against the applicant that the present applicant are of a very serious and grave 4 nature, wherein it is alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, formed R.V. Group through Spash Advisory Pvt. Ltd. and induced the complainant and several others to obtain bank loans on the pretext of investing 50% of the amount in trading with an assurance of repaying the EMIs, but subsequently stopped repayment, resulting in huge financial losses to the victims; further considering the fact that approximately 140 persons have allegedly been cheated to the tune of around ₹50 crore and that there are also allegations of misuse of documents and involvement of certain bank officials, which shows a larger conspiracy; and magnitude of the offence, number of victims, and financial impact are extremely high and investigation is still at a crucial stage, as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Sudesh Ekka, involved in Crime No.348/2025, registered at Police Station- Gandhinagar Dehat Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan