1 2025:CGHC:58378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9723 of 2025 Narayan Prasad Dhurvey S/o Late Lakhan Lal Dhurvey Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Budha Mahadev Ward Rajmahal Chowk, P.S. and Tehsil- Kawardha, Distt.- Kawardha (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Kawardha, Distt.- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Lumesh Sahu S/o Tarendra Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Majgaon, Distt.- Bemetara, C.G. (Complainant) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer.s Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.12.2025 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 06/2025 registered at Police Station : Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 6(5) and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005. 2. Earlier bail application was dismissed was withdrawn vide order dated PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.03 15:15:24 +0530 2 11.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7802/2025. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that one Lumesh Sahu lodged a written complaint stating that he had met Dharmesh Dhurve (son of the present applicant) at a wedding reception in Kawardha, where he was present along with Ravindra Kumbhakar and other friends. During this meeting, Dharmesh Dhurve informed the complainant that he operated a company named “DYP Dhurvey Brothers Pvt. Ltd.”, through which investors could earn a 10% monthly profit on the amount invested. Relying on this representation, the complainant handed over D30,000 in cash to Dharmesh Dhurve in May 2023. It is further alleged that Dharmesh Dhurve, Yatindra Dhurve, and Harshita Sharma, all residents of Bilaspur, were running a company styled as “DYP Dhurvey Brothers Pvt. Ltd.”, which promised investors a guaranteed monthly profit of 10%. On this assurance, the complainant transferred D80,000 on 19/09/2023, D1,00,000 on 21/09/2023, and D4,50,000 on 19/09/2023 through net banking to the company’s account, amounting to a total investment of D6,30,000. The complainant received certain monthly profit amounts, such as D53,000 each in October 2023 and November 2023, and D30,000 each in January 2024 and May 2024. Thereafter, no further payments were made to him. The complainant repeatedly requested Dharmesh Dhurve and Yatindra Dhurve throughout the year 2024 to return his invested money, but they allegedly refused and also threatened to falsely implicate him in a criminal case. On this basis, the present applicant was arrested by the police of Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 6(5) and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005, which have also been incorporated in the final report submitted by the prosecution. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7802/2025. He further submits that there is absolutely no explanation for the considerable delay in the registration of the F.I.R. by the complainant, which renders the prosecution story doubtful and indicative of afterthought and exaggeration. He also submits that the present applicant is a school principal and happens to be the father of two of the co-accused persons, namely Dharmesh Kumar Dhurve and Yatindra Dhurve. Merely in order to create pressure and fear in the minds of the said accused persons, the applicant has been unnecessarily and maliciously roped into the matter at hand. The applicant was never involved in the day-to-day business, functioning, or affairs of the company in question, nor did he ever act on behalf of the company in any capacity. It is specifically submitted that the applicant has never demanded or received any money from any complainant or investor. He further submits that in the F.I.R. No. 269/2025, registered at Police Station - Tarbahar (C.G.) under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the name of the applicant does not even find mention; yet, despite this, he has been arrested without any incriminating material against him. The applicant has absolutely no role to play in the commission of the alleged offence, and there is no evidence, documentary or otherwise, connecting him in any manner to the alleged acts. The applicant was never involved, either officially or unofficially, in any financial transactions related to the alleged investment scheme. The applicant is about 56 years of age and has been in judicial custody for over three months. The trial is likely to take considerable time, and no fruitful purpose will be served by the continued detention of the applicant. He 4 later submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent, further the charge-sheet has been submitted and he is in jail since 19.08.2025. Therefore, he prays that the applicant to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that during the course of investigation, the applicant/accused was found to be actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence, leading to his lawful arrest on 19/08/2025. The charge-sheet further reveals that there exists prima-facie material establishing the applicant’s complicity in the offence. It is further submitted that, apart from the present case, complaints have been filed at various places by several other victims alleging large-scale cheating and fraud to the tune of Rs. 50,00,00,000/-. The pattern of repeated fraudulent activities demonstrates that the applicant is part of a wider and continuing economic offence. At present, offences involving inducement, misappropriation of public money, and exploitation of innocent and gullible villagers are on the rise, posing a serious threat to the financial security of the public at large. In view of the gravity of the offence, the magnitude of the financial fraud, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the broader public interest involved, the State submits that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the fact and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the fact that during the course of investigation, the applicant/accused was found to be actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence, further apart from the present case, complaints have been filed at various places by several other victims alleging large-scale cheating and fraud to the tune of 5 Rs. 50,00,00,000/-, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of applicant – Narayan Prasad Dhurvey involved in Crime No. 06/2025 registered at Police Station : Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 6(5) and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti