1 2025:CGHC:57795 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1864 of 2025 1 - Raju Sahu S/o Manikram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Imlibhata, Bandhawapara, Sarkanda, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Dileep Kashyap S/o Lalji Aged About 32 Years R/o Kataud, Tehsil And Thana- Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Malkharoda, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashish Tiwari and Ms. Ishita Mishra, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 0222/2025 registered at Police Station – Malkharoda, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 District- Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506, 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the applicants have been incriminated as co-accused persons in connection with FIR No. 0222/2025 dated 23.09.2025 registered at Police Station Malkharoda, District Sakti for offences under Sections 420/506/34 of the IPC. It is alleged that the complainant, Yomkesh Das, a soldier in the Indian Army, met applicant No. 1, Raju Sahu, during basic training at Pune, wherearound in February 2023, applicant No. 1 purportedly informed him about an opportunity to earn Rs.30,000-Rs.40,000 per month merely by creating an ID and attending virtual meetings. The complainant expressed his inability to engage in outside work as a government employee and also cited lack of funds, upon which applicant No. 1 suggested that his mother could be involved instead. Relying on these representations, the complainant allegedly helped create an ID in the name of his mother and, in his absence, a bank loan of Rs.6,00,000/- was sanctioned in his name, which he subsequently transferred to the bank account of applicant No. 1. It is further alleged that applicant No. 1 invested the said amount in QNET Ltd. and, despite demands for refund, returned only Rs.95,000/- while the balance Rs.5,05,000/- remains unpaid. The FIR further alleges that the applicants induced the complainant by misrepresenting that they were earning substantial profits from this business. Hence this bail application. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated, as they have not committed any offence alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the complainant has deliberately concealed material facts and projected a distorted narrative in the FIR, whereas the true position is that the complainant’s mother, Smt. Kanta Bai Mahant, had voluntarily and with full knowledge enrolled herself in the direct selling business of Vihaan Direct Selling (India) Pvt. Ltd., a sub-franchise of QNET Ltd., after being duly informed about the terms and conditions of the said business model. It is submitted that she had filled and signed the Distributor Application Form and Acknowledgment, expressly confirming her understanding of the policies, procedures, rights, and obligations applicable to Independent Representatives (IRs), whereafter she was allotted a unique IR number-IM802943. Subsequent to her enrolment, she also purchased certain products through the QNET e-commerce platform on 07.07.2023, and the monetary transactions forming the subject matter of the FIR pertain solely to the said purchases, for which receipts were duly issued by the Company. It is emphasized that the applicants neither misappropriated any amount nor utilized it for personal gain rather, the money was remitted only towards product purchases, and no amount whatsoever has ever been credited to the bank account of applicant No. 2. He further submits that after failing to earn the expected commissions from the direct selling business, 4 despite having actually received certain commission payments as reflected in the settlement receipts, the complainant’s mother belatedly attempted to seek a refund beyond the prescribed 30- day SLA period. Upon being informed that refund could not be processed at such a delayed stage, the complainant, in collusion with his family members, lodged the present FIR after an unexplained delay of more than two years solely to pressurise the applicants and recover monies that had been voluntarily paid for product purchases. He also submits that the complainant has been habitually filing multiple FIRs across different districts on identical allegations. Reference is drawn to similar FIRs at Sarangarh and Bilaspur, wherein co-accused persons have already been granted bail, and it is contended that the present FIR has been lodged immediately after grant of regular bail in MCRC No. 6826/2025 with the clear intention of preventing the applicants from availing similar relief. Hence, in light of the voluntary nature of enrolment, the documentary evidence of product purchases, prior commission earnings, delay of more than two years, multiplicity of FIRs, and consistent bail/stay orders in identical cases, it is submitted that no offence under Sections 420/506/34 IPC is made out against the applicants and therefore, the Applicants deserve the protection of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that specific and serious allegations have been levelled against the applicants regarding inducing the complainant 5 and causing wrongful loss of money. It is submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for proper recovery, verification of the money trail, and to ascertain the involvement of other persons connected with the alleged fraudulent activity. He further contends that the FIR discloses a prima facie case under Sections 420/506/34 IPC and the applicants do not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, the material placed on record, the documentary evidence showing voluntary enrollment and product purchase by the complainant’s mother, the unexplained delay of more than two years in lodging the FIR, and the fact that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted bail in connected matters with different crime numbers, this Court is of the prima facie view that custodial interrogation of the applicants is not warranted. The allegations appear to arise out of a commercial/direct-selling transaction. Accordingly, this Court finds it a fit case to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Raju Sahu and Dileep Kashyap, on executing a personal bond with one local surety 6 (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Applicants and the sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) They shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil