Ravinder Singh Sidhu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:59896

¶3

AVINASH SHARMA

¶4

Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.12.10 13:15:14 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

MCRC No. 10130 of 2025

¶8

Ravinder Singh Sidhu S/o Late Shri Avtar Singh Sidhu Aged About 47 Years R/o 125, Park Avenue, Amritsar, Thana Sultan Bhind, District - Amritsar, Punjab.

¶9

...Applicant.

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S. - Pandri, District - Raipur (C.G.).

¶12

... Respondent.

¶13

For Applicant	: Shri Devershi Thakur, Advocate.
For State/Respondent	: Shri MalayJain, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

10/12/2025

¶17

This is the Third bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.426/2018 registered at Police Station Pandri, District Raipur C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC and Section 10 of CGPDI Act, 2015 and Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Prize chits and Money circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.

¶18

2

¶19

The First Bail Application of the applicant was rejected on merits reserving liberty in favour of the applicant to revive the prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within six months vide order dated 13.05.2022 passed in MCRC No.1727 of 2022. The Second Bail Application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a better constituted petition vide order dated 24.07.2025 passed in MCRC No.5142 of 2025.

¶20

Prosecution case, in brief, is that applicant being a Director of the company namely KIM INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LIMITED and M/s NECTOR COMMERCIAL ESTATE LIMITED allured various investors on the pretext of doubling their amount. However, without returning the amount as promised, cheated the investors and thereby committed fraud.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that SEBI has already attached the movable and immovable properties of the said companies. He further submits that about 75 FIRs have been registered against the applicant in various States, out of which, applicant has been enlarged on regular bail in 28 cases and he has been acquitted in 5 cases and convicted in 4 cases and also discharged in 1 case. He would further submit that in the instant case, applicant is behind the bars since 14.10.2018 and has already served more than half of the maximum sentence. Learned counsel further submits that while rejecting the First Bail Application of the applicant, this Court had granted a liberty in favour of the applicant to revive the bail application if the trial is not concluded within six months but the trial has not yet been concluded and

¶22

3

¶23

conclusion of the same is likely to take considerable time. Considering these aspects, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Per contra, counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and submits that applicant is a Director of the said companies and is not entitled for grant of bail as various crimes have been registered against him across the States.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶26

Having considered the submissions of the parties, particularly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, delay in trial, also considering the length of pre-trial detention and conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, and further considering that SEBI has already attached the movable and immovable properties of the said companies which is not disputed by counsel for the State, I am of the considered view that applicant is entitled for regular bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the Application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Applicant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said Court. The applicant shall also furnish the details of movable and immovable properties held by him and his family members viz. wife & dependent children and shall not alienate the immovable property without the prior

¶28

permission of the concerned trial Court.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶31

Avinash

Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.N. Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bodhiram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raghunandan Prasad Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parmanand Bhardwaj Vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank

Dr. Y.K. Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh