1 2025:CGHC:61057 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10373 of 2025 Sandeep Shankar Saxena S/o Shri Hari Shankar Saxena Aged About 54 Years R/o 24, Mahadev Nagar Extension (Wrongly Mentioned As Saxtention), Sodala, Jaipur Rajasthan. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.12.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 239/2017 registered at Police Station Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409/34 of the IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainants namely Dhirendra Sahu, Hireshwari Sahu and others lodged a written report alleging that in the year 2010, agents of Sai Prakash Development Company approached them and offered certain investment schemes, pursuant to which they invested money; however, even after the expiry of a period of six years, the promised returns were not paid, and therefore the present report was lodged. Upon receipt of the said complaint, the police initiated investigation and registered an FIR on 16.04.2017 against the Director of Sai Prakash Properties Development Limited, namely Pushpendra Baghel, and after completion of the investigation, filed a charge- sheet on 26.04.2022 before the Special Judge, PDI Act, Bemetara, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, as well as Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005, initially against accused Mrigendra Singh Baghel and subsequently against the other Directors of the said company, a copy of the FIR is filed herewith as Annexure A/3. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the allegations against him are wholly baseless. It is submitted that pursuant to the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Cr.M.P. No. 3042/2025, wherein the permanent arrest warrant was directed to be kept in abeyance, the applicant voluntarily surrendered before the trial court on 28.10.2025 and moved a bail application, which was 3 rejected without proper appreciation of the documents placed on record. He further submits that the trial court erred in rejecting the application merely on the ground that the applicant was a Director at the relevant time, despite the fact that the documents showing his resignation and non-involvement were neither considered nor discussed. It is further submitted that no allegation of active participation or involvement in the financial affairs of the company has been attributed to the applicant, and even the SEBI enquiry has not found any material showing his involvement in money-mobilizing activities. The applicant had served as a Director only for a very brief period from 03.12.2009 to 22.04.2010, after which he resigned, his resignation was duly accepted, and Form-32 was submitted by surrendering his shares; hence, no prima facie case is made out against him. It is further argued that investigation has been completed, the charge sheet has been filed, and no further custodial interrogation is required. He further submits that the applicant has five criminal antecedents, out of which four cases in Rajasthan have already been disposed of, and one case pending in Durg, Chhattisgarh, in which he has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No.8863/2025 vide order dated 10.12.2025, which was also disclosed before this Hon’ble Court at the time of filing the aforesaid Cr.M.P. He submits that the present applicant is in jail since 05.12.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant is himself one of the Directors of Sai Prakash Properties Development Limited, the very company which has cheated numerous innocent investors, including the complainants, by inducing them to invest in fraudulent policies with false assurances of triple returns. It is submitted that the company’s other Directors have already been declared absconders, and the applicant, being an active participant in the management and functioning of the company, played a direct role in the deception and illegal money-circulation activities. Learned State counsel further submits that the applicant has five criminal antecedents, out of which four cases are registered in the State of Rajasthan and one case is registered in Durg, Chhattisgarh, all pertaining to similar economic offences involving cheating and financial fraud. This clearly reflects his habitual involvement in such criminal activities. Considering the gravity of the economic offence, the large number of victims, the applicant’s direct role as Director, his criminal antecedents, and the likelihood that he may abscond or tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, it is argued that he does not deserve the benefit of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that the nature of allegations against the applicant does not justify his continued incarceration. It is not disputed that the applicant was associated with the company only for a brief period 5 from 03.12.2009 to 22.04.2010 and thereafter tendered his resignation, which was duly accepted and Form-32 was filed by surrendering his shares. The prosecution has not placed any material to show that during the said period the applicant was actively involved in the financial affairs of the company or that he participated in the alleged money-mobilizing activities. On the contrary, the SEBI enquiry report does not attribute any role to the applicant in the mobilization of funds or running of the deposit schemes. It further appears that this Court, in Cr.M.P. No. 3042/2025, after examining the applicant’s disclosure regarding five criminal antecedents, four of which in Rajasthan stand disposed of and only one pending in Durg, Chhattisgarh, in which he has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8863/2025 vide order dated 10.12.2025, directed that the permanent arrest warrant be kept in abeyance, and pursuant thereto the applicant surrendered and cooperated with the proceedings. The investigation is now complete, the charge sheet stands filed, and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The applicant is in jail since 05.12.2025, and there is nothing on record to suggest that if released on bail he would either abscond or tamper with the evidence, particularly when the principal accused and other directors have already been proceeded against and the evidence stands crystallized. In view of the applicant’s limited role, the completed investigation, the absence of prima facie material showing his participation in the alleged fraudulent activities, and the settled principles governing the grant of bail, this Court is of the 6 considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant- Sandeep Shankar Saxena, involved in Crime No. 239/2017 registered at Police Station Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409/34 of the IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 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 him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of 7 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 him, 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. 8. 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 Rahul Dewangan