1 / 3 2025:CGHC:44748 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6540 of 2025 • Ashok Kumar Shaha S/o Ramesh Chandra Shaha Aged About 45 Years R/o Shitalnagar College Road, Extension P.S. Agartala, District : West Tripura, Tripura ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pandatarai, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 02/09/2025 1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 01/2017 registered at Police Station – Pandatari, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4, 5 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 17.02.2018, Dharmendra Chandravanshi and Panchram Chandravanshi had lodged a report at the concerned Police Station alleging that they had invested money in the Rose Valley Hotels & Entertainment Limited Company of which the present PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 applicant and the other co-accused Goutam Kundu are said to be Directors. However, even after the maturity of their investment, the invested money with interest was not returned to them by the Company. Therefore, the aforementioned offence was registered and the applicant stand arrested since 06.09.2022. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case only on the basis of suspicion. He submits that many crimes are registered against applicant in different police stations on complaint of different depositors. In some cases, applicant has already been granted bail in similar nature of crime. He further submits that the other co-accused, Goutam Kundu, Sibamoy Datta were enlarged on bail by High Court in similar nature of offence, vide MCRC No. 1593/2024 decided on 27.03.2024, MCRC No.1164/2024 decided on 27.2.2024 and vide MCRC No.1731/2024 decided on 11.3.2024 respectively, as also Abir Kundu in MCRC No. 433/2023 decided on 08.05.2023 and the alleged role played by the present applicant is similar to that of the aforementioned accused person. Therefore, applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that looking to the gravity of offence, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. He however, does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for applicant that other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties, period of detention, trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, as also considering that the other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application. 3 / 3 7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that- (a) 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. (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In case of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) 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. (d) 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE