1 2025:CGHC:57793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1721 of 2025 Dileep Kashyap S/o Lalji Kashyap Aged About 32 Years R/o Katoud, Tehsil And Police Station - Navagarh, Janjgir-Champa C.G.- 495557. --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Bhatgaon, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. --- Respondent(s) MCRCA No. 1722 of 2025 1 - Raju Sahu S/o Manikram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 65, Sant Namdev Nagar, Imlibhantha, Bandhawapara, Sarkanda, Teh. And Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495001. 2 - Ishwari Sahu W/o Manik Ram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Imli Bhatha, Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Lokesh Kashyap S/o Shanker Lal Aged About 34 Years R/o H. No. 491, Baniyapra, Post Kataud, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh - 495557. ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Bhatgaon, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.27 19:13:03 +0530 2 For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashish Tiwari and Ms. Ishita Mishra, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer For Objector : Mr. Jashkrn Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. These first anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 0115/2025 registered at Police Station – Bhatgaon, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that in FIR No. 0115/2025 dated 18.07.2025 registered at Police Station Bhatgaon, Sarangarh, the Complainant Dhaneshwari Joshi, wife of a serving Army personnel, has alleged that around March 2023 her husband came into contact with co-accused Surendra Kurre, who purportedly lured him with an opportunity to work on a “multi- million-dollar project” for obtaining a Microsoft licence. Since he was a government employee and could not take up private work, he was allegedly advised to participate in the project in the name of the Complainant. Believing the representations made by Surendra Kurre and other co-accused persons, the complainant’s husband is stated to have transferred a total sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- in several instalments to the accused persons, 3 including the present applicants and co-accused Kundan. It is further alleged that no such project or licence was ever provided, and that the applicants along with the co-accused have cheated the complainant and her husband by dishonestly inducing them to part with the aforesaid amount. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated, as they have not committed any offence alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the entire dispute, as alleged in the FIR, arises out of a lawful and legitimate direct selling business model of Vihaan Direct Selling (India) Pvt. Ltd., a sub-franchisee of QNET Ltd., in which the complainant had voluntarily and knowingly enrolled herself as an Independent Representative after being duly informed of all terms and conditions. It is submitted that the complainant had filled the Distributor Application Form, signed the mandatory Acknowledgment, was allotted IR No. IM099259, and had also purchased products on 24.03.2023 and 08.09.2023, for which proper receipts were issued. The money allegedly forming the subject matter of the FIR was paid by the Complainant only towards purchase of products, and no amount whatsoever was ever transferred to the present applicants. Not only did the complainant participate in the business, she also earned commissions under the direct selling model, but upon failing to achieve her own monetary expectations, she sought a refund well beyond the 30-day SLA period. When the Company declined 4 refund on legitimate grounds, the complainant after an unexplained delay of nearly two years, lodged the present FIR only to exert undue pressure and falsely implicate the applicants. It is further submitted that even the arrest of co-accused Kundan was carried out illegally without issuance of notice under Section 35(3) BNS, showing clear malafides and collusion between the complainant and certain police officials. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants stand on the same footing as several similarly placed individuals who have already been granted regular bail or anticipatory bail by this Court as well as various other Courts across the country in matters arising from identical allegations connected to the QNET/Vihaan direct selling model. Also, co-accused namely Kundan Prasad Kashypa has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2025 in MCRC No. 8726/2025 and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. Lastly, in view of the Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016 and 2017 issued by the Government of India and the State of Chhattisgarh, any grievance of the complainant is purely civil/consumer in nature and is required to be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is submitted that in Naresh Balasubramaniam v. State of Karnataka (2017 SCC OnLine Kar 843), the proceedings in a similar QNET-related matter were quashed for being civil in nature. Hence, the present FIR is nothing but an abuse of the criminal process, registered with malafide intent, and 5 therefore the applicants deserve protection by way of anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused namely Kundan Prasad Kashypa has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2025 in MCRC No. 8726/2025 and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, this Court finds that the allegations in the FIR primarily arise from the complainant’s voluntary participation in a direct selling business, supported by documentary evidence including the Distributor Application Form, Acknowledgment, IR details, and purchase receipts. The admitted delay of nearly two years in lodging the FIR, coupled with the complainant’s own monetary transactions for product purchases and receipt of commissions, prima facie indicate that the dispute is predominantly civil and consumer-oriented rather than criminal in nature. It is also noted that the co-accused, namely Kundan Prasad Kashyap, has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2025 in MCRC No. 8726/2025, and the case of the present applicants is identical to that of the co- 6 accused. Considering the fact that no specific role warranting custodial interrogation has been attributed to the present applicants, the allegations appear to arise out of a commercial/direct-selling transaction. Accordingly, this Court finds it a fit case to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Dileep Kashyap, Raju Sahu, Ishwari Sahu and Lokesh Kashyap on executing a personal bond with one local surety (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (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 him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Applicants and the sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) They shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Abhishek