1 2025:CGHC:49443 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1513 of 2025 • Pawan Kumar Tandeshwar S/o B.L. Tandeshwar Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. D.H.-51, Scheme No. 24 C Vijay Nagar, District Indore, M.P. ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O., Police Station- Saraswati Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Shrivasta with Ms. Arya Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26/09/2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.255/2024 registered at Police Station – Saraswati Nagar District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) and read with Section 34 of BNS, 2023. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that the applicant is merely an employee under the Indore Headquarters of Kautilya Academy, VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.09.26 18:02:40 +0530 2 which alone determines appointments, fees, and operational decisions of its branches. In 2024, owing to very low admissions (only 5 students), the Indore head office decided to close the Raipur branch. The said few students had their courses duly completed, and the applicant himself had no role either in fee fixation or in the closure decision. Thus, there is neither any culpable act nor mens rea attributable to the applicant. It is further urged that his wife Ruby Majumdar has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court, and that the applicant is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed. the High Court while deciding theapplicant's wife's case recorded that the main accused is Siddhant Joshi, the Director of the Academy, and not the applicant or his wife. This observation reduces the culpability attributed to the applicant, who is at best a subordinate/employee, bound by the head office's directions. There is no evidence available to substantiate the complainant's claim that the applicant personally received any amount from the complainants. Fee fixation, admissions, and closure decisions were taken by the Indore headquarters, not by the applicant individually. Therefore, FIR has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant alongwith his wife, namely, Ruby Majumdar has been made as accused in the present case. It is stated that the 3 applicant herein is an employee of Kautilya Academy and the Director of the said Academy is one Siddhant Joshi. The said academy’s registered office is at Indore. However, the applicant being the employee of the said academy has taken more than Rs.18 lac. from 19 students and has thereafter given to Siddhant Joshi, the Director of the Academy, who has not been made as an accused in the present case and only the applicant and his wife has been made an accused in the present case. The wife of the applicant, namely, Ruby Majumdar has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order passed in MCRC-111- 2025 dt. 22.01.2025. Further, the investigation and trial are likely to take time, therefore, he submits that the present applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the applicant would oppose the bail application of the applicant. He submits that there is no documentary evidence to show that the Kautilya Academy, of which the applicant herein is an employee, is having its registered office at Indore and Siddhant Joshi is its Director. Even, the applicant is an employee of said Kautilya Academy is also does not borne out from the material available on record, except a baled statement that the applicant is an employee of Kautilya Academy. He vehemently argued that the applicant has committed fraud with 19 innocent students and has taken money from them on the assurance of providing coaching to them. Moreover, the present case was registered against the applicant on 23.11.2024, however, till date, though 4 no charge-sheet has been filed, but the applicant has not surrendered before the police and, approached this Court after 09 months without giving any plausible explanation as to why he did not approached the Court for grant of anticipatory bail. Even, the said Kautilya Academy has a branch at Raipur and the applicant was taking care of the said branch. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and further the fact that there is no documentary evidence to show that the Kautilya Academy, of which the applicant herein is an employee, is having its registered office at Indore and Siddhant Joshi is its Director. Even, the applicant is an employee of said Kautilya Academy is also does not borne out from the material available on record, except a baled statement that the applicant is an employee of said Kautilya Academy and the applicant has committed fraud with 19 innocent students and has taken money from them to the tune of Rs.18 lac. on the assurance of providing coaching to them. Moreover, the present case was registered against the applicant on 23.11.2024, however, till date, though no charge-sheet has been filed, but the applicant has not surrendered before the police and, approached this Court after 09 months without giving any plausible explanation as to why he did not approached the Court for grant of anticipatory bail earlier and, the said Kautilya 5 Academy has a branch at Raipur and the applicant was taking care of the said branch, thus, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant– Pawan Tandeshwar filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in Crime No.255/2024 registered at Police Station – Saraswati Nagar District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) and read with Section 34 of BNS, 2023, is rejected. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali