1 2025:CGHC:58377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9639 of 2025 Narayan Prasad Dhurvey S/o Late Lakhanlal Dhurvey, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Budha Mahadev Ward Rajmahal Chowk, P.S. and Tehsil Kawardha, Dist. Kawardha (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Kawardha, Dist.- Kabirdham (C.G.) (Name Of P.S. Wrongly Mentioned As Pandatarai In The Order Sheet) 2. Shiv Soni, S/o Girdhar Soni, Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 21, Kawardha, Dist. Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. 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. 672/2024 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 PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.03 15:15:24 +0530 2 Depositor’s Interest Act, 2005. 2. Earlier bail application was dismissed was withdrawn vide order dated 11.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7846/2025. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30/10/2024, one Shiv Soni lodged a complaint stating that Dharmesh Dhurve, Yatind Dhurve, Narayan Dhurve, and Harshita were well known to him. In the year 2022, Dharmesh Dhurve met the complainant and informed him that Dharmesh Dhurve, Yatind Dhurve, and Harshita had formed a company named Dypdhurwebrothers Pvt. Ltd., which encouraged individuals to invest, assuring them of a monthly profit of 10% on the investment and a guaranteed return of the principal amount after 12 months. Relying on these assurances, the complainant made online as well as cash transfers to the company’s account. The office of the company operated under the name “Nivesh King”, located on the second floor of Narayan Plaza, Link Road, Bilaspur. However, when the complainant later requested the monthly profit amount, the accused persons allegedly refused to pay it from February 2024 onwards. Subsequently, when the complainant demanded the return of his principal amount, Dharmesh Dhurve again refused. During a meeting at the office, Dharmesh Dhurve allegedly deceived the complainant by stating that he had not traded in the stock market but had merely rotated the invested money. When the complainant insisted on repayment, Dharmesh Dhurve again refused and further threatened to falsely implicate him in a criminal case. A list of all investors’ names and the amounts invested is attached. On this basis, the applicant was arrested by the police of Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, C.G. for the alleged offence 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 3 been incorporated in the final report submitted by the prosecution. 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. 7846/2025. 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. 06/2025, registered at Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (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 4 fruitful purpose will be served by the continued detention of the applicant. He 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 5 victims alleging large-scale cheating and fraud to the tune of 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. 672/2024 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 Depositor’s Interest Act, 2005, 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