1 2025:CGHC:52216 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8485 of 2025 1 - Bhairav Mishra @ Mogli S/o Ramdhan Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Janjgir, Tehsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 27/10/2025 Heard. 1. The applicant has preferred this First bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.138/2021, registered at Police Station – 2 Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC, Section 3, 4 & 5 of Chit Funds Act and Sections 6 and 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a written complaint was lodged at police station by one Vijay Kumar Gadewal alleging that the agent Vinod Vishwas and other directors of Pratishtha infrastructure have cheated him and by alluring him with the promise of doubling his money, they made him deposit Rs. 2100/- per month but when on the date of maturity, he went to collect his money, he found that office of the company was closed. Therefore, the offence has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question for which, he is languishing in jail since 12.09.2025. He also submits that other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 03.11.2022, 15.12.2022, 30.06.2023, 11.07.2023, 30.06.2023 and 17.10.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 7734 of 2022, 9974 of 2022, 2905 of 2023, 3309 of 2023, 4457 of 2023 and 8125 of 2025. He further submits that the applicant is just a shareholder of the said company and he has no active role in the said crime. He lastly submits that conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, the present applicant may also be granted privilege of regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail 3 application and submits that there are 11 previous criminal antecedents have been registered against the applicant and out of which, two antecedents are of similar criminal nature have been registered against him, and, therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations against the applicant, the detention period of the applicant, the fact that other co-accused persons have already been released on regular bail by this Court, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release him on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed, till final disposal of the trial. Certified copy, as per rules. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV