1 2025:CGHC:22647 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1977 of 2025 Dharmendra Singh Tomar S/o Vijay Singh Tomar Aged About 42 Years Jagga Road Near M.S. Garden Ambah, District- Muraina (M.P.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Bodhghat, District – Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.06.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 352/2024 registered at Police Station – Bodhghat, District – Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66(D) of the Information and Technology Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged by Praveen Kumar Banik at the Police Station concerned alleging that the holder of mobile number 9985175619 contacted him via whatsapp RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 and inducedh imi to download the “Dhan” broker platform app, promising a 20% return on investment, between 27.07.2024 and 20.08.2024, a total amount of Rs. 13,42,000/- was allegedly fraudulently withdrawn from the complainant’s bhank account through multiple transactions, based on the complaint, the crime was registered, and during the course of investigation it was reveale that the fraudulently obtained amount was initially transferred to the bank account of Krishna Traders and subsequently to the ICICI Bank account of co-accused Keshav Sahu, thereafter, the accused has also been arrested in the present case. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. It has been further submitted that the applicant is a poor person and he is also a handicapped person, and allegations levelled against the applicant is that he has defrauded a sum of Rs. 13,42,000/- from the bank account of the complainant, and no concrete evidence has been presented against the applicant to establish that any money was deposited into his account. The applicant is in jail since 07.02.2025, and the conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that from the perusal of the case-diary it transpires that the applicant is also indulged in other criminal cases in the State of Bihar, which are of similar offence, and in the present case the applicant is said to have defrauded a sum of Rs. 13,42,000/- from the bank account of the complainant. As such, the bail application 3 deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, and from the perusal of the case-diary it transpires that the applicant is also indulged in other criminal cases in the State of Bihar, which are of similar offence, and in the present case the applicant is said to have defrauded a sum of Rs. 13,42,000/- from the bank account of the complainant, and so far as the applicant is stated to be handicapped, no any medical documents has been annexed with the bail application regarding the same, thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, this first bail application of applicant – Dharmendra Singh Tomar involved in Crime No. 352/2024 registered at Police Station – Bodhghat, District – Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the Information and Technology Act, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the concerned trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar