1 2025:CGHC:36096 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5831 of 2025 1 - Vibha Verma D/o Shri Lekhram Verma Aged About 24 Years R/o Shivanand Nagar, P.S. Khamtarai, (Thana (P.S.) Wrongly Mentioned As Khana) Raipur, (Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order) District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Pooja Yadav D/o Shri Kheduram Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Gram Panchayat - Silghat, Tehsil - Berla, (Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order) District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. City Kotwali, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.07.2025 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 50/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 under Sections 318 (4), 3 (5), 341, 342, 336, 338, 340 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) & 10 of C.G. (Protection of Interest of Depositors) Act 2005. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Tribhuvan Singh lodged a report stating that he had received a phone call from Abhay Gupta, who introduced himself as the head of R.V. Group and Spash Advisor Pvt. Ltd., offering to facilitate a loan. Acting on this, the complainant availed loans amounting to ₹72,00,000/- from various banks, after which Abhay Gupta persuaded him to invest 50% of the said amount in different schemes of R.V. Group. It is alleged that, in a pre-planned and fraudulent manner, Abhay Gupta collected deposits from several customers by luring them with promises of financial benefits and quick loan processing but failed to provide the assured returns, thereby cheating them. Subsequently, it came to light that R.V. Group had induced multiple persons to invest through similar tactics. The company later stopped making payments, and the present applicants, two women employees posted at the company’s office located at DM Plaza, Chotapara, were allegedly giving verbal assurances to visiting investors despite no refunds being made. It is further alleged that Abhay Gupta, along with co-accused Manoj Pradhan, Surendra Singh, and Ragif Hussain, collectively defrauded investors to the tune of ₹1,03,08,196/-. In view of the likelihood of the accused absconding, the complaint sought necessary legal action. The FIR has been registered as Crime No. 50/2025 at Police Station City Kotwali, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the offence in question. He further submits that the present applicants are unmarried young girls aged about 23–24 years, working merely as low-paid Sales Executives in Spash Advisor Pvt. Ltd., and are neither owners, directors nor partners of R.V. Group or Spash Advisor Pvt. Ltd., in which the complainants and other persons had invested money. He also submits that the applicants were only discharging their duties as employees and had no role whatsoever in the alleged fraudulent transactions carried out by the company’s directors. From a bare perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the allegations are primarily against the directors/partners of the said company for inducing investors to take loans and invest in their schemes; the only allegation against the present applicants is that they were stationed in the office to verbally assure investors who visited the premises. It is further submitted that though the co- accused Abhay Gupta allegedly misused the bank account of the applicants for routing certain transactions, no commission or personal gain accrued to them. The applicants, being merely employees and not beneficiaries of the alleged fraud, are in jail since 04.04.2025; the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits 4 that the allegations in the FIR are extremely serious in nature, involving a well-planned financial fraud wherein the prime accused Abhay Gupta, in connivance with other co-accused including the present applicants, induced the complainant and several other victims to obtain loans from banks and invest substantial sums in R.V. Group and Spash Advisor Pvt. Ltd. on the false pretext of lucrative returns and speedy processing of loans. It is urged that the total cheating amounts to approximately ₹1,03,08,196/-, and the role of the present applicants cannot be ignored as they were actively posted at the office premises of the company, continuously giving verbal assurances to aggrieved investors even after the company had stopped making payments. Therefore, the applicants are 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 04.04.2025, the fact that the present applicants are young unmarried young girl of about 23–24 years of age, working merely as low-paid Sales Executives in Spash Advisor Pvt. Ltd., and are neither owners, directors, nor partners of R.V. Group or Spash Advisor Pvt. Ltd., in which the alleged fraudulent transactions were committed, this Court finds that their role is clearly distinguishable from that of the main accused directors/partners who are alleged to have orchestrated and benefitted from the fraud. A plain reading of the FIR and the material collected during investigation reveals that 5 the primary allegations pertain to inducement and misappropriation by the company’s directors/partners, and the only imputation against the present applicants is that they were posted in the office and gave verbal assurances to investors visiting the premises, further the said act was attributed to co-accused person, who are directors/partners of the said company, further the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused, who committed the said act, the applicants have no criminal antecedents and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let the Applicants – Vibha Verma and Pooja Yadav, involved in Crime No. 50/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (4), 3 (5), 341, 342, 336, 338, 340 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) & 10 of C.G. (Protection of Interest of Depositors) Act 2005, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial 6 court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan