1 2025:CGHC:54851 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9003 of 2025 Sanjeet Agrawal S/o Kanhaiyalal Agrawa,l Aged About 34 Years, Occupation Business, R/o Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, P.S. and Tehsil Surajpur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhinagar, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.715/2024, registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120 B of Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act and Sections 4,5,6 of Prize Chit Fund and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.11 18:38:11 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Bhola Prasad Kurre, submitted a written complaint against the applicant/accused, Sanjeet Agrawal, and co-accused Sandeep Agrawal, Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal, Dev Kumar Kurre, Divya Gupta, and Yogesh Gupta. The complaint was filed at the Gandhinagar Police Station, and an F.I.R. was registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on 03.12.2024. It is alleged in the complaint that the main accused, Sanjeet Agrawal, had made certain statements against the complainant, and that money was deposited into the bank accounts of Sanjeet Agrawal and Dev Kumar Kurre. The report of the Station House Officer further mentions that the alleged fraud amount was received by Sanjeet Agrawal and Dev Kumar Kurre, either in cash or through account transfers, and that co-accused Dev Kumar Kurre had withdrawn money through a cheque. It is also stated that the main accused, Sanjeet Agrawal, had issued a cheque to the complainant and other victims for refunding the amount, which was dishonoured upon presentation. The case diary initially indicates that all transactions and dealings of the complainant were with the main accused/applicant Sanjeet Agrawal and co-accused Dev Kumar Kurre. The applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail in Crime No. 715/2024, registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.), for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the I.P.C. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the 3 applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant had already been granted anticipatory bail in the present case, as initially the F.I.R. was registered against him for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC in MCRCA No. 199/2025, and during the course of investigation, offences under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act and Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chit Fund and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act were also added. Further, the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents, in which he was granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8252/2025 vide order dated 15.10.2025, and by the learned trial Court in B.A. No. 475/2024. Copies of both the bail orders, along with the anticipatory bail order, are annexed as Annexure A/3. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 14.10.2025, while the trial is likely to take a considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for the grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. He further submits that from the perusal of the case diary, it appears that the applicant had opened a company named “Shubh Nivesh Stock Market” and, through agents, collected crores of rupees from investors. Thereafter, the company was closed, and by not returning the investors’ money, the applicant committed fraud, therefore, the applicant is not 4 entitle for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the applicant had already been granted anticipatory bail in the present case in MCRCA No. 199/2025 vide order dated 05.02.2025, as initially the F.I.R. was registered against him for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC, and during the course of investigation, offences under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act and Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chit Fund and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act were also added, further, the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents, in which he was granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8252/2025 vide order dated 15.10.2025, and by the learned trial Court in B.A. No. 475/2024, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 14.10.2025, as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant – Sanjeet Agrawal, involved in Crime No.715/2024, registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120 B of Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act and Sections 4,5,6 of Prize Chit Fund and Money 5 Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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 his, in accordance with law, 6 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 his 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti