1 2025:CGHC:53618 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8726 of 2025 Kundan Prasad Kashyap S/o Lalji Kashyap Aged About 36 Years R/o H 82, Kataud, Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, 495557. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Bhatgaon, Distt. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Tiwari Advocate along with Ms. Ishita Mishra, Advocate appearing through VC For Non-applicant/State. : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.11.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 0115/2025 registered at Police Station Bhatgaon, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant has been arraigned as one of the co-accused in respect of FIR No. 115/2025 dated 18.07.2025, registered ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.04 17:24:17 +0530 2 at Police Station Sarangarh, District Bhatgaon, Chhattisgarh, under Sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “said FIR”). It is alleged in the said FIR that the complainant, namely Smt. Dhaneshwari Joshi, is the wife of a serving soldier in the Indian Army. Around March 2023, her husband became acquainted with the co-accused, namely Shri Surendra Kurre, who allegedly induced him to work for a “multi-million-dollar project” to obtain a license from Microsoft Company. The complainant’s husband informed the said co- accused that, being a government employee, he could not work for another organization. Upon hearing this, the co-accused allegedly suggested that he could work for the project by using the complainant’s name. In the said FIR, the complainant has further alleged that her husband sent a total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) in several installments to the applicant and co-accused persons, namely Shri Raju Sahu, Shri Ishwari Sahu, and Shri Lokesh. It is alleged that the complainant has neither received any work related to the said “multi- million-dollar project” nor obtained any license. The complainant has further alleged that the accused persons cheated her and her husband and dishonestly induced them to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only). The Applicant was arrested in connection with the said FIR on 18.09.2025 and was produced before the learned Magistrate on the same day, who remanded him to judicial custody. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case. He submits that the complainant herein has concealed material facts and presented a completely distorted picture in the FIR. The Complainant had willingly and voluntarily enrolled in the Direct Selling Business of Vihaan Direct Selling (India) Pvt. Ltd., which is a sub- 3 franchise of QNET Ltd. QNET Ltd. is an e-commerce-based direct selling entity engaged in the sale of its products and services through word-of-mouth and referral marketing, also referred to as Direct Selling Business, conducted through its direct selling personnel, who are also referred to as Distributors/Independent Representatives (IRs). He further submits that prior to the enrolment of the complainant in the said Direct Selling Business, she was thoroughly informed and explained about the terms and conditions of the business. She duly filled out the Distributor application Form and also signed an Acknowledgment confirming that she had understood all the terms and conditions of the business and agreed to abide by all the policies and procedures thereof. Subsequent to her enrolment, she was allotted an IR number, which is a unique identity assigned to every Distributor/IR working in the said Direct Selling Business. The Complainant was allotted IR No. IM099259, which is also reflected on her ID Card. He also submits that the complainant not only enrolled as an Independent Representative but also purchased certain products through the e-commerce platform of QNET Ltd. The said purchases were made on 24.03.2023 and 08.09.2023, and the transactions forming the subject matter of the present FIR were made solely for the purpose of purchasing the said products. The Company had duly issued purchase receipts for the same. It is pertinent to mention that the money transferred to the applicant herein was only towards the products purchased by the Complainant and was never utilized by the Applicant for his personal gain. He further submits that the complainant had enrolled herself as an Independent Representative of the Company to earn income. However, after enrolling in July 2023, when she could not generate the expected earnings from the Company’s Direct Selling Business, she started demanding a refund of the money paid for the 4 purchase of products. She was informed that a refund could not be processed as her request was made beyond the standard SLA period of 30 days. Consequently, in order to exert unjust and undue pressure upon the applicant herein, the Complainant filed the present FIR after a colossal delay of two years. Furthermore, it is not the case that the complainant did not earn any money from the Company’s Direct Selling Business; in fact, she had received commissions through the sale of the Company’s products and services. However, as she failed to meet her own financial expectations, the Complainant, along with her husband, conspired to falsely implicate the Applicant and co-accused persons in the present case with the intent to unlawfully recover the amount actually paid towards the purchase of the Company’s products. He submits that on 17.09.2025, the police ofÏcials illegally took the applicant into custody under the guise of interrogation and did not even serve any notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The police ofÏcials are acting in collusion with the complainant in the present FIR, which has been lodged by her with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against the applicant and co-accused persons, arising out of personal animosity. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 18.09.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/objector has also opposed the bail application of the present applicant. The complainant, Dhaneshwari Ratre, was allegedly deceived on the pretext of obtaining a 5 Microsoft company license to work on a multimillion-dollar project. It is alleged that an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- was taken from her between 09.03.2023 and 12.03.2023; however, neither was any multimillion-dollar project provided nor was any such license issued. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and taking into account the fact that the present applicant is involved in an alleged fraud wherein the complainant, Dhaneshwari Ratre, was allegedly deceived on the pretext of obtaining a Microsoft company license to work on a multimillion-dollar project, it is alleged that an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- was taken from her between 09.03.2023 and 12.03.2023; however, neither was any multimillion-dollar project provided nor was any such license issued. Moreover, taking into consideration the fact that the present FIR was lodged against the applicant after a delay of two years, and that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 18.09.2025, and that the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 8. Let the Applicant – Kundan Prasad Kashyap, involved in Crime No. 0115/2025 registered at Police Station Bhatgaon, District – Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing 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 6 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 sufÏcient 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, 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 sufÏcient 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. 9. OfÏce 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 Abhishek