1 2025:CGHC:51940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1621 of 2025 Raju Sahu S/o Manikram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 65, Sant Namdev Nagar, Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur C.G.- 495001. --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur C.G. --- Non-applicant MCRCA No. 1623 of 2025 Dileep Kashyap S/o Lalji Aged About 32 Years R/o Kataud, Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh-495557 --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Ms. Ishita Mishra, Advocate (through Video Conferencing) and Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.10.2025 1. Since these two bail applications arise out of same crime number, they have been clubbed, heard together and are being decided of by this common order. 2. These first anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) have been filed by the applicants, namely Raju Sahu and Dileep Kashyap, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.1003/2025 registered at Police Station – Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 507 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Somesh Singh got acquainted with Raju Sahu during his duty in Assam. In November 2022, Raju Sahu induced the applicant to invest in a multi-million dollar project by promising lucrative returns and offering to execute it in the name of the mother of applicant-Raju Sahu. Relying on these representations, the complainant transferred a total of Rs. 1,40,000/- to Raju Sahu through PhonePe on 23-12-2022, 29-12-2022, and 30-12-2022, while Rs. 1,50,000/- was allegedly transferred by Raju Sahu’s mother to the complainant’s account. Subsequently, when the complainant inquired about the project, Raju Sahu and Dileep 3 Kashyap repeatedly postponed the matter and failed to return the money. Thereafter, they allegedly threatened the complainant with dire consequences. 4. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 1003/2025 under Sections 420, 507, 34 IPC was registered at Sarkanda Police Station, Bilaspur. The investigation revealed a bank transaction of Rs. 3,62,07,261/- in connection with the crime, and the complainant has also been named in a similar FIR No. 115/2025 at Bhatgaon Police Station, indicating a criminal record of like nature. 5. Learned counsel for the respective applicants in both the bail applications submits that the complainant has deliberately concealed material facts and has presented a distorted version of events in the FIR. It is submitted that the complainant’s mother, Mrs. Parvati, had voluntarily enrolled herself in the direct selling business of Vihaan Direct Selling (India) Pvt. Ltd., which is a sub- franchise of QNET Ltd., after being fully informed and explained about the terms and conditions of the business. She had duly filled the Distributor Application form, signed an acknowledgment confirming that she understood and agreed with all policies and procedures of the business, and was subsequently issued a unique IR (Independent Representative) number IM006345. It is further submitted that the complainant’s mother purchased products through the e-commerce platform of QNET Ltd., 4 including two units of ‘Tripsavr Advance’ on 30.12.2022, as an investment to earn additional income. Through these products, distributors can generate income by booking hotel rooms, transport, and excursions for clients and creating their own network of travelers. The complainant’s mother had earned commissions through such activities, and any claims regarding monetary loss are due to her own expectations, not any fraudulent conduct by the applicants. The transactions in question were therefore legitimate business dealings, and any grievance arising from them is purely civil in nature, which should be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in accordance with the Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the Direct Selling Guidelines, 2017 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh. 6. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of over three years from the date of the transactions, which prima facie indicates mala fide intention on the part of the complainant to exert undue pressure on the applicant. Learned counsel submits that no amount of money has been transferred to the account of co-accused Dileep Kashyap in connection with the transactions alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that co-accused Ishwari Sahu, who is the mother of applicant Raju Sahu, has already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 6826/2025 vide order dated 18.09.2025, demonstrating that the allegations in respect of 5 similar transactions in the direct selling business have been found to be insufficient to warrant custodial interrogation. 7. Learned counsel also submits that the applicants are permanent residents of Chhattisgarh and reside at the address mentioned in the cause title, where all their movable and immovable properties are situated, leaving no possibility of them absconding from the process of law. It is submitted that the applicants are law-abiding citizens, who will fully cooperate with the investigation and attend the authorities whenever required. They are also ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and undertake to abide by any conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose in the interest of justice. 8. In view of the above, it is most respectfully submitted that the applicants have made out sufficient case for the grant of anticipatory bail and, accordingly, prays that this Court be granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in the interest of justice. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the allegations against the applicants are serious in nature, involving substantial monetary transactions. It is further submitted that the investigation is still at a crucial stage, and custodial interrogation of the applicants may be necessary to secure evidence and examine banking and electronic records. Learned State counsel also contends that the applicant Raju 6 Sahy has one previous criminal antecedent of similar nature, and allowing anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the ongoing investigation and affect the collection of evidence. As such, the applicants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 11. Upon hearing learned counsel for the applicants and learned State counsel, and on perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that the applicants have made out a prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail. The FIR appears to arise out of a dispute concerning a direct selling business, which is essentially civil in nature. The transactions in question have been duly explained by the applicants, and there is no evidence to suggest that they have misappropriated any funds or acted with criminal intent. The applicants are permanent residents of Chhattisgarh, possess adequate means, and have strong social and family ties, leaving no likelihood of them absconding. 12. The Court also noted that the co-accused Ishwari Sahu in a similar matter has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in MCRC No.6826/2025 vide order dated 18.09.2025. Considering the fact that the dispute in question is predominantly civil in nature, the investigation is ongoing, but there is no indication that the applicants would interfere with evidence or the investigation if granted bail, as such, without further commenting anything on 7 merits, this Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants. 13. Accordingly, both anticipatory bail applications being MCRCA No.1621/2025 and MCRCA No.1623/2025 are allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants- Raju Sahu and Dileep Kashyap, on executing a personal bond and one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on anticipatory 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 them from disclosing such fact to the Court or any police officer. (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 them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) That in case of change of address she will inform new address to investigating agency. (e) They shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal