Allowed

Vipin Singh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026MCRC/8668/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order on a first bail application filed by Vipin Singh Yadav challenging his arrest in connection with a crime registered under various sections of IPC, Prize Chits Act, and Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interests Act. The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the bail application, directing the release of the applicant on furnishing a bond. The decision was primarily based on the fact that the applicant had spent over five years in pre-trial detention and the trial had not commenced, without a detailed commentary on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹25,000 with one surety in the like sum.

Vipin Singh Yadav Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010356402026 2026:CGHC:40690

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 8668 of 2026

¶6

Vipin Singh Yadav S/o Abhilakh Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village Harchandrapura, P.S. Dehat, Bhind, District Bhind (M.P.) (Cause Title Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order And The Same Has Been Extracted From Copy Of Bail Application)

¶7

--- Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy.A.G.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶13

ORDER ON BOARD

¶14

Digitally BALRAM signed by PRASAD BALRAM DEWANGAN PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶15

17/09/2026

¶16

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. 153/2018 registered at Police Station – Patewa, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 3, 4, 5 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act, 2005.

¶17

Case of prosecution in brief is that complaint was lodged by Chandrashekhar Dewangan and others alleging that person engaged by B.N. Gold Real Estate and Allied Company Ltd. have executed

¶18

¶19

bonds and collected huge amount from the local peoples including him on the assurance of giving their deposited amount double within short period, however, after maturity of amount it was not returned back to complainants. The amount deposited was Rs. 1,80,000 of which bond papers were also issued by the company. It is also alleged that the chit fund companies have been restricted to run their business from the year 2014, however, the amount has been collected on 13.02.2016. Based on the report/ complaint, initially crime was registered for alleged offence as mentioned above in the cause title against Directors of the company.

¶20

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged. Applicant is in jail since 06.08.2021 and he has completed five years of pre-trial detention. He further submits that trial is not proceeding appropriately and recording of evidence of witness till date has not been started. He submits that the last order-sheet which is filed at page No.27 (Annexure A-4) would show that some of the accused persons are not appearing before the learned trial Court. He submits that main accused in this case namely Gurvinder Singh Sandhu, who is Director of the company has been released on bail by this Court in MCRC No. 4522 of 2025 vide order dated 24.06.2025. Hence, applicant may be released on bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submits that it is a case where the company, appointing agents have collected huge money and after maturity of the amount, so deposited by the

¶22

¶23

beneficiaries, have not been returned back. He also pointed out that according to the allegation assurance was given to depositors to double the amount within short period. Applicant is shown as one of the Directors in Articles of Association seized by the police during investigation. He also submits that from the order-sheet placed along with bail application it is appearing that the accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail is not appearing before the trial Court and further bail cancellation order was passed by learned trial Court of co-accused – Charanjeet Singh and If the applicant is released on bail, there is a likelihood that he will abscond and evade the course of trial.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶25

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that applicant is in jail since 06.08.2021 and has completed over five years of pre-trial detention while the trial is yet to commence and further taking into consideration that one of the director of the company namely Gurvinder Singh Sandhu has been released on bail, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the bail application.

¶26

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-

¶27

(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

¶28

¶29

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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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.

¶33

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶34

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶35

Balram

Vipin Singh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Singh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases