[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Raju Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 June, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:23838
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4440 of 2025
Raju Singh S/o Harpal Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Emlidaggu, Bypass
Road, P.S- Kotwali, District- Korba (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Kotwali,
District- Korba (C.G.)
...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For Res/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
13/06/2025
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. 703/2024 registered at Police Station- Kotwani, District-
Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4),
336, 338, 111(B), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS') and
2
Section 6 & 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the company's director
namely- Akhilesh Singh, through Flora Maz Service Private Limited
Company, in a planned manner, by luring people of Korba and nearby
villages with high profits and commission. The present accused
gathered overall 30,000 to 40,000 women and lured them to invest
into the company by saying that they will receive a sum of Rs. 2700/-
as commission thereafter those women deposited money at the rate of
Rs. 30-40 thousand per persons and by promising to give Rs. 2700/-
per month and commission, committed fraud of lump sum and then
absconded by closing the office of the said company. Thereafter, a
complaint has been lodged and after investigation, the accused has
been charged as aforementioned and subsequently, he was arrested.
Hence, the bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not
committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in
question. He further submits that the applicant is the brother of co-
accused-Akhilesh Singh, who is the main accused / director of the said
company, the investors who used to invest in the company by selling
the materials of the company and the amount which the investors
invested for the material they used to received the amount and after
selling those items the investors gave the selling amount to the
company and from that amount the investors used to received Rs.
2700/- to 3000/-monthly or Rs. 100/- daily as profit and all the
investors have received their profit. He also submits that co-accused,
Gudiya Devi and Manju Chauhan have already been granted bail by
3
this Court vide orders dated 21.04.2025 & 02.01.2025 in MCRC Nos.
2647/2025 & 8976/2024. The applicant is in jail since 20.11.2024 , so
far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant
has four criminal antecedents, out of which, against three cases
applicant has preferred bail applications bearing MCRC Nos.
4453/2025, 4438/2025, 4454 of 2025 which are also listed today,
further 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 appearing for the
respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the
charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits
that the accused, alongwith others, formed groups of women and
obtained amount of Rs.30,000 to 40,000/- per person for their business
with a promise to pay them Rs. 2,700/- monthly salary. These women’s
groups were made to operate shops at different locations, and daily
transactions were carried out. However, the director of the company,
Akhilesh Singh, kept the income generated from these shops and did
not pay the women their monthly salary of Rs. 2,700/-. Further
applicant has four criminal antecedents of identical nature, therefore,
he is not entitled for grant of bails of identical nature, therefore, he is
not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since
20.11.2024, also considering the fact that the applicant is the brother
4
of co-accused Akhilesh Singh and the present applicant alongwith
other co-accused persons were allegedly formed a group of women to
operate shops at different locations, and obtained amount of
Rs.30,000 to 40,000/- each for their business and later on Akhilesh
Singh who is the director of the said company kept the income
generated from these shops and did not pay the women their monthly
salary of Rs. 2,700/-, the main accused in present case is Akhilesh
Singh, who committed the alleged act, so far as criminal antecedents
of the applicant are concerned, applicant has four criminal
antecedents, out of which, against three cases applicant has preferred
bail applications bearing MCRC Nos. 4440/2025, 585/2024 and
7/2025, which are also listed today and the same are allowed today
itself by this Court, further charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of
the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Let the Applicant-Raju Singh, involved in Crime No. 703/2024
registered at Police Station- Kotwani, District- Korba (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 336, 338, 111(B),
3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 6 & 10 of
Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, be released on bail
on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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
5orders 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 sufficient 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
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.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Amita
AMITA Digitally signed
by AMITA DUBEY
DUBEY Date: 2025.06.16
15:00:49 +0530
[ad_2]
Source link