Shashibhushan Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 129 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Shashibhushan Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                            1




                                                                              2026:CGHC:10337
                                                                                          NAFR

                                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                  CRA No. 211 of 2025
                      Shashibhushan Prasad S/o Shrinath Ram Aged About 51 Years Caste- Barai,
                      Occupation- Agent (Welfare Building And Estate Pvt. Ltd.) R/o Village-
                      Mahuagawa, P.S. Chainpur, District Palamu, Jharkhand, At Present Near
                      Railway Crossing Muhalla Daltenganj, P.S. Medininagar, District Palamu,
                      Jharkhand.
                                                                                     ... Appellant
                                                         versus
                      State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Chirmiri, District :
                      Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                   ... Respondent

                      For Appellant        :   Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate.
                      For Respondent       :   Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer.
         Digitally
         signed by
         PREETI
PREETI
KUMARI
         KUMARI
         Date:
                                       Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
         2026.02.28
         17:52:41
         +0530                                     Order On Board
                      27.02.2026

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal for grant of Anticipatory Bail,

apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 71/2016, registered

at Police Station - Chirmiri, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur

(C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 4, 5

of Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and

Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors (Interest) Act,

2005 and Section 420/34 of India Penal Code, 1872.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a branch of Welfare Building and

Estate Pvt. Ltd., a chit fund company registered with the Registrar of

Companies, Kolkata (West Bengal), bearing Registration No.

U70102WB1999PTC163559, was opened at Chirmiri, District

Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (Chhattisgarh). According to the

prosecution, the object of the said company was to induce investors to

deposit money with an assurance that they would receive double the

invested amount within a stipulated period. The complainant, Babulla

Gond, resident of Paraspani, Bartunga, lodged a written complaint at

Police Station Chirmiri alleging that he had deposited money in the

Chirmiri branch of the company but the same was not returned.

Accordingly, he filed a complaint against the company and its directors.

The present applicant was working only as an agent of the said company.

3. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No. 71/2016 was registered under

Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes

(Banning) Act, 1978; Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of

Depositors' Interest Act, 2005, and Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1872. However, during investigation, the concerned Station House

Officer did not find any material evidence against any person and,

accordingly, filed a closure report on 11.07.2017. Thereafter, after a lapse

of approximately five years, the Superintendent of Police, Koriya, by letter

dated 26.05.2022, sought permission from the learned Magistrate to

reopen the inquiry and re-investigate the matter. In the above

circumstances, the applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with the

aforesaid offence.

4. Accordingly, the applicant preferred an application under Section 482 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking

anticipatory bail before the learned Special Judge under the Chhattisgarh

Protection of Depositors' Interest Act at Korea, Baikunthpur (C.G.).

However, the learned Special Court rejected the applicant's first

anticipatory bail application by order dated 13.12.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the appellant is innocent

and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits

that the appellant is a permanent resident of Village Mahugawa, Police

Station Chainpur, District Palamu, Jharkhand. He has never visited the

concerned village of Chirmiri, nor has he directly or indirectly compelled

any investor to invest or deposit any money in the branch office of Welfare

Building and Estate Pvt. Ltd., Chirmiri. During the course of investigation,

neither the complainant nor any of the depositors made any allegation

against the present appellant. Even in the statements recorded before the

learned Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, no allegation was made

against him. Accordingly, after due inquiry and in the absence of any

material evidence, the concerned SHO submitted a closure report before

the learned Magistrate on 11.07.2017. Since then, no case has been

made out against the appellant. Reliance is placed by the counsel for the

appellant upon the order/memo dated 16.10.2019 issued by Deputy

Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh (Home Department) to buttress his

submissions.

6. Learned State counsel, opposing the prayer, has at the outset raised a

preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present appeal. It is

submitted that the alleged offence includes Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh

Protection of Depositors' Interest Act, 2005, and Section 15 of the said

Act contains an express statutory bar with regard to grant of anticipatory

bail. The Special Court constituted under the said Act exercises exclusive

jurisdiction in respect of offences thereunder, and the legislative intent is

clear that persons accused of offences affecting the financial interests of

depositors are not entitled to invoke the remedy of anticipatory bail.

Learned State counsel submits that once the offence under the said

Special Act is attracted, the bar under Section 15 operates with full force,

irrespective of the fact that other offences under the Prize Chits and

Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 or the Indian Penal

Code, 1872 have also been invoked. It is further submitted that the

magnitude and nature of the allegations disclose a systematic inducement

of innocent investors on the promise of doubling their deposits within a

stipulated period, which squarely falls within the mischief sought to be

curbed by the Special Act of 2005. The mere filing of a closure report at

an earlier stage would not create any indefeasible right in favour of the

appellant, particularly when the competent authority has sought

re-investigation in accordance with law. Learned State counsel contends

that economic offences stand on a different footing, as they involve public

money and affect a large number of unsuspecting depositors. Therefore,

custodial interrogation may be necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy

and financial trail, and at this stage, no indulgence is warranted.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

8. It transpires from the record that the appellant has preferred application

under Section 483 of BNSS before the Court concerned and the same

has been rejected vide order dated 13.12.2024 and against the said

order, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed in view of Section 16(1)

of the Act of 2005. However, the learned State counsel has made

preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present appeal

and states that in view of Section 15 of the Act of 2005, anticipatory bail

cannot be granted

9. The only question for consideration would be whether in view of bar

contained in Section 15 of the Act of 2005, the application for anticipatory

bail is maintainable ?

10. Section 10 of the Act of 2005 states as under :

"10. Punishment for defaults by financial establishment - Where any financial establishment fraudulently defaults or any financial establishment acts in a calculated manner with an intention to defraud the depositors; every person including the promoter, partner, director, manager or any other person or an employee responsible for the management of or conducting of the business or affairs or of such financial establishment shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 years but may extend to ten years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but may extend to five lakhs rupees and such financial establishment shall also be liable to fine not less than three lakhs rupees but may extend to ten lakhs rupees."

11. Section 15 of the Act of 2005 provides as under : -

"15. Anticipatory bail not to be granted -

Notwithstanding anything contained in section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No.2 of 1974) no application for anticipatory bail shall lie for an offence punishable under the Act."

12. Considering the object and scheme of the Chhattisgarh Protection of

Depositors' Interest Act, 2005, which has been enacted to safeguard

innocent depositors from fraudulent financial establishments, and the

allegations regarding inducement of investors by promising abnormal

returns, this Court is unable to hold, at this stage, that no prima facie

material exists so as to obviate the requirement of custodial interrogation,

particularly when the offence also involves Section 10 of the said Act

along with Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation

Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,

1872.

13. Upon considering the matter in its entirety, this Court finds that the

allegations pertain to collection of deposits from members of the public

under alluring schemes promising abnormal returns. Such activities

directly impact the financial security of small investors and fall within the

regulatory framework of the Special Act of 2005 enacted by the State

Legislature to safeguard depositors' interests. The bar engrafted under

Section 15 of the said Act is specific and unequivocal, thereby restricting

the exercise of jurisdiction in matters relating to anticipatory bail. When

the statute itself expressly curtails such remedy, this Court, in exercise of

appellate jurisdiction, cannot bypass or dilute the legislative mandate.

14. The contention of the appellant that he was merely an agent and that no

direct allegation has been made against him relates to the merits of the

accusation, which may be examined at the appropriate stage in

accordance with law. However, at the threshold, the issue of

maintainability goes to the root of the matter. In view of the express

statutory prohibition contained in Section 15 of the Chhattisgarh

Protection of Depositors' Interest Act, 2005, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the present appeal seeking anticipatory bail is not

maintainable.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion and particularly in light of the express

statutory bar contained in Section 15 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of

Depositors' Interest Act, 2005, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the present appeal seeking grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

16. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

Preeti