1 2025:CGHC:60101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8863 of 2025 Sandeep Shankar S/o Shri Hari Shankar Saxena Aged About 54 Years R/o 24, Mahadev Nagar Extension, Sodala, Jaipur Rajasthan. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pulgaon District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.12.2025 1. This is the 昀椀rst bail application 昀椀led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 483/2017 registered at Police Station Pulgaon District Durg (C.G.) for the o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant, namely Tejram Gautam, lodged a written report alleging that Sai Prakash Properties Development Limited, which operates across the State of Chhattisgarh and has its corporate o昀케ces at Sansarchandra Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) and Jail Road, Bhopal (M.P.), had cheated him. It is alleged that one Chaman Verma, who was working as an agent of the said company and was known to the complainant, induced him to purchase seven policies in his and his wife’s name, assuring that on maturity he would receive nearly three times the invested amount. However, after the maturity period expired, neither any amount was paid nor any information was provided by the company. It is further alleged that the said agent, in collusion with the directors of the company, deceived the complainant. Based on the report, FIR was registered on 26.10.2017 against the directors of Sai Prakash Properties Development Limited and the agent Chaman Verma. After completion of investigation, the police 昀椀led a charge-sheet on 24.03.2022 for the o昀昀ences under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005, before the Court of the Sessions Judge/Special Judge (PDI Act), Durg. The directors of the said company have already been declared absconders vide list dated 22.03.2022. A copy of the FIR is 昀椀led herewith as Annexure A/2. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the allegations against him are wholly baseless. It is submitted that pursuant to the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Cr.M.P. No. 3042/2025, wherein the permanent arrest warrant was directed to be kept in abeyance, the applicant voluntarily surrendered before the trial court on 28.10.2025 and moved a bail application, which was rejected without proper appreciation of the documents placed on record. He further submits that the trial court erred in rejecting the application merely on the ground that the applicant was a Director at the relevant time, despite the fact that the documents showing his resignation and non-involvement were neither considered nor discussed. It is further submitted that no allegation of active participation or involvement in the 昀椀nancial a昀昀airs of the company has been attributed to the applicant, and even the SEBI enquiry has not found any material showing his involvement in money-mobilizing activities. The applicant had served as a Director only for a very brief period from 03.12.2009 to 22.04.2010, after which he resigned, his resignation was duly accepted, and Form-32 was submitted by surrendering his shares; hence, no prima facie case is made out against him. It is further argued that investigation has been completed, the charge sheet has been 昀椀led, and no further custodial interrogation is required. He further submits that the applicant has 昀椀ve criminal antecedents, out of which four cases in Rajasthan have already been disposed of, and one case pending in Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, which was also disclosed before this 4 Hon’ble Court at the time of 昀椀ling the aforesaid Cr.M.P. He submits that the present applicant is in jail since 28.10.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant is himself one of the Directors of Sai Prakash Properties Development Limited, the very company which has cheated numerous innocent investors, including the complainant, by inducing them to invest in fraudulent policies with false assurances of triple returns. It is submitted that the company’s other Directors have already been declared absconders, and the applicant, being an active participant in the management and functioning of the company, played a direct role in the deception and illegal money-circulation activities. Learned State counsel further submits that the applicant has 昀椀ve criminal antecedents, out of which four cases are registered in the State of Rajasthan and one case is registered in Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, all pertaining to similar economic o昀昀ences involving cheating and 昀椀nancial fraud. This clearly re昀氀ects his habitual involvement in such criminal activities. Considering the gravity of the economic o昀昀ence, the large number of victims, the applicant’s direct role as Director, his criminal antecedents, and the likelihood that he may abscond or tamper with evidence or in昀氀uence witnesses, it is argued that he does not deserve the bene昀椀t of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 5 6. Considering the entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that the nature of allegations against the applicant does not justify his continued incarceration. It is not disputed that the applicant was associated with the company only for a brief period from 03.12.2009 to 22.04.2010 and thereafter tendered his resignation, which was duly accepted and Form-32 was 昀椀led by surrendering his shares. The prosecution has not placed any material to show that during the said period the applicant was actively involved in the 昀椀nancial a昀昀airs of the company or that he participated in the alleged money-mobilizing activities. On the contrary, the SEBI enquiry report does not attribute any role to the applicant in the mobilization of funds or running of the deposit schemes. It further appears that this Court, in Cr.M.P. No. 3042/2025, after examining the applicant’s disclosure regarding 昀椀ve criminal antecedents, four of which in Rajasthan stand disposed of and only one pending in Bemetara, directed that the permanent arrest warrant be kept in abeyance, and pursuant thereto the applicant surrendered on 28.10.2025 and cooperated with the proceedings. The investigation is now complete, the charge sheet stands 昀椀led, and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The applicant is in jail since 28.10.2025, and there is nothing on record to suggest that if released on bail he would either abscond or tamper with the evidence, particularly when the principal accused and other directors have already been proceeded against and the evidence stands crystallized. In view of the applicant’s limited role, the completed investigation, the absence of 6 prima facie material showing his participation in the alleged fraudulent activities, and the settled principles governing the grant of bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant- Sandeep Shankar, involved in Crime No. 483/2017 registered at Police Station Pulgaon District Durg (C.G.) for the o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 昀椀le an undertaking to the e昀昀ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 昀椀xed 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 昀椀xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su昀케cient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of 7 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 昀椀xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 昀椀xed 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 su昀케cient 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. O昀케ce is directed to send a certi昀椀ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan