1 CGHC010302692026 2026:CGHC:38922 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7503 of 2026 Vijay Kumar Saraf (Wrongly Mentioned As Vijay Sharaf) S/o Ganga Ram Saraf Aged About 54 Years (Aadhar No. 5659 1818 6665) R/o Vikas Nagar Gali No.3, Kotra Road Ward No.40, Raigarh District- And Tehsil- Raigarh (C.G.) … Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station - City Kotwali, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Atanu Gosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 02.09.2026 1. Applicant has filed this First Bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1363/2020 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District- Raigarh, (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2005. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.09.03 10:52:52 +0530 2 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that, one Vikas Niganiya (complainant) lodged a written report in the concerned police station alleging that Om Prakash Sharma, Branch Manager, Kabir Chowk, District- Raigarh approached him and made him to believe that Sahara India Society is a licensed society and works as per the guidelines issued by the Reserved Bank of India and if he invests the amount in the Sahara India Society, he will surely get the principle amount with interest. By successive approach and assurances given by Om Prakash Sharma, complainant deposited/invested money in Sahara India in the name of his mother and wife from June, 2017 till September, 2017 to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Forty Lakhs Rupees). Thereafter, the said Branch Manager with the other higher officials have advised the complainant to invest/deposit small amounts in different forms in Sahara India Society. Under confusion, complainant asked the Branch Manager and the other officials as to whether, if he deposits in the Sahara India, the money will be deposited in the Sahara India or not? Again, he was assured that the amount will be deposited with Sahara India and thereafter, the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was deposited in 182 accounts in Sahara India Society and 182 bonds were issued. Thereafter, he was not returned back the invested amount. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime, he has not committed offence as alleged. He further submits that the applicant has been shown to be working as Senior Regional Worker, at the intervening period applicant was not posted at any territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station where the FIR was registered. He further submits that according to his instructions on 3 account of action taken by Securities and Exchange Board of India (S.E.B.I) against the company the entire financial transaction of the company are stopped and therefore, the amount deposited by the depositor could not be returned within time. According to the directives issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from time to time for disbursement of amount of Rs. 5,000/- crore from the corpus fund for repayment of amount to the investors/depositors and further directed to make the mechanism for its disbursement to the depositors. Pursuant thereto, the portal was opened and the investors/depositors were asked to submit their applications along with the details and thereafter, as per his information, according to the procedure adopted for repayment of the deposited amount, the depositors were repaid the part of their deposit directly in their bank accounts. 4. He lastly points out that the co-accused in the same crime were enlarged on bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1058/2024, MCRC No. 2569 of 2024, MCRC No. 5100 of 2024, MCRC No. 2907 and MCRC No. 2721 of 2023 and the case of the applicant is also on the similar footing. Hence, he may also be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned counsel for State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, however, he do not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to the release of co-accused in the aforementioned bail application. He also submits that the applicant was arrested subsequent to them and upon query he fairly submits that after the arrest of applicant charge-sheet has been filed against him also. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the bail application. 7. Perusal of the order dated 29.03.2023 passed in WPC No. 191/2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India would show that the learned Solicitor General of India has submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the amount of Rs. 24,979.67/- crores of the company is lying with S.E.B.I. in the account of Sahara- S.E.B.I. Refund Account and from that account, Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed for transfer of Rs. 50,00,00,00,000/- (Five Thousand Crores) to the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies for returning back the amount to the legitimate depositors of the Sahara Group of Co-operatives Societies. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the genuine depositors is not disputed by the counsel for the State. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, material available in the case diary, as also, the documents enclosed along with the bail application, submission of counsel for the respective parties, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application for grant of bail. 9. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that- (a) 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. 5 (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In case of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) 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. (d) 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 sufficient 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. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Alfiza JUDGE