1 2026:CGHC:376 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9718 of 2025 Prakash Chandra Padhi (Wrongly Mentioned As Prakashchandra Pani In The Bail Rejection Order) S/o Baishnab Charan Padhi Aged About 38 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Vaishnav Charan Pani ) R/o Radhe Radhe Anand, Nagar, Kuluthakani, Charwati, Police Station Dhanupali, Tahsil And District- Sambalpur (Odisha) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) (Concerned Police Station Newai) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate For Objector/complainant : Mr. Amit Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.01.202 6 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. 101/2025 registered at Police Station- Newai, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (For short IPC) RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that vide written report dated 27.04.2025, the informant, namely Yogesh Kumar Sahu, a resident of Bhilai and an M.Com and MBA graduate, lodged a complaint stating that in the year 2014, while working with the Jindal Group at Raigarh, he came into contact with the accused Prakash Chandra Padhi, who used to persuade him to get connected with the MCX Company. In June 2022, the complainant left his job due to personal reasons and started an accounting and taxation business at Durg, which did not perform well. During this period, he again came in contact with accused Prakash Chandra Padhi, who induced him to invest in the MCX Company by assuring a monthly profit of 3–7%. In December 2022, the complainant attended a seminar at Raigarh, where the main accused Santosh Kumar Acharya introduced the MCX Company and its MIS Scheme, claiming that the company was operating for the last 10 years, was registered with SEBI, and that he himself was the Director, with ofÏces at Sambalpur (Odisha) and Bengaluru, and further assured issuance of bond papers as security of investment. Thereafter, on the insistence of accused Prakash Chandra Padhi, the complainant transferred Rs.4 lakh to his account, and an additional Rs.1 lakh was added by the accused, making a total investment of Rs.5 lakh, for which confirmation mail dated 30.12.2022 was received, and profits of Rs.25,000/- per month were paid for February and March 2023. Subsequently, between 28.04.2023 and 30.12.2023, the complainant further invested Rs.13.5 lakh in his own name and Rs.21 lakh in the name of his wife directly into the bank account of 3 accused Santosh Kumar Acharya, thereby investing a total of Rs.39.50 lakh and receiving profits of about Rs.14 lakh. In a similar manner, his friends Sukhnand Sahu and Girish Chandrakar invested Rs.3 lakh and Rs.7 lakh respectively. The company paid profits till July 2024 and thereafter stopped making payments, and upon demand for return of the invested amount, accused Prakash Chandra Padhi disclosed that the bond papers were fraudulent. Thus, alleging that the accused persons, on the allurement of 3–7% monthly profit, cheated the complainant and others to the tune of Rs.49.50 lakh by issuing fraudulent bond papers, the present offence was registered, and the applicant has been arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, as no offence, much less the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 34 of the IPC, is made out against him and the essential ingredients thereof are conspicuously absent. It is submitted that the applicant himself was an investor/employee of the company and, believing its schemes to be genuine, had invested a sum of Rs.31 lakh collected from his family members, for which bond certificates were issued to him. When the complainant, who is an old friend of the applicant, sought return of his investment, the applicant informed him that he too was similarly affected and had invested his family’s hard- earned money; nevertheless, the applicant returned Rs.5 lakh to the complainant on 04.02.2025. It is further submitted that the applicant, along with other investors, lodged a complaint in Odisha against the company Director Santosh Kumar Acharya, pursuant to 4 which an FIR was registered, the said Director was arrested, and a charge-sheet has been filed against him, and he is presently in judicial custody. The applicant has no nexus with the alleged offence and was already granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha. Allegations regarding the applicant’s travel with the main accused are baseless and founded on morphed photographsDical photographs, as the applicant has never travelled abroad with the main accused, which stands corroborated by his passport. He further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 25.09.2025, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector/complainant oppose the application and submit that the applicant, in connivance with other co-accused persons, induced the complainant and others to invest huge amounts on the false assurance of 3–7% monthly returns in the name of the MCX Company and issued fraudulent bond papers, thereby committing serious economic offences involving cheating to the tune of Rs.49.50 lakh. It is further submitted that the allegations are grave in nature, involve multiple victims and planned fraud, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the fact that the applicant himself is an investor and 5 has suffered financial loss, that the main accused/Director Santosh Kumar Acharya has already been arrested and is in jail in a connected case in Odisha, that the applicant has returned part of the amount to the complainant, has no nexus with the alleged offence, and was already granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha, and further considering that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.09.2025, the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Prakash Chandra Padhi, involved in Crime No. 101/2025 registered at Police Station- Newai, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing 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 6 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 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan