1 2025:CGHC:13706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2253 of 2025 Sunil Kumar @ Sonu @ Ajay Sharma S/o Shri Girish Sharma Aged About 25 Years R/o Vallabhgarh, Sector-3, Faridabad, P.S. Ambedkar Chowk, District Vallabhgarh (Harayana) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 505/2024, registered at Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 66 D of Information Technology Act, 2000. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that complainant Lekhram Chandrakar filed a written complaint at Kurud Police Station, alleging therein that accused Mohan Sharma, also known as Mohan Baba, alongwith other co-accused persons Dharampal Gupta and Rekha Rajput, cheated him of Rs.52,49,425. The accused allegedly contacted the complainant through mobile Nos. 9599596902, 9319866626, and 9119749337, and sent various photos and videos related to tantric practices through WhatsApp. They promised to bring prosperity and happiness into his life and claimed to possess spiritual powers that could alleviate his problems. They obtained his Aadhaar card, photos of his house, and other personal information, and then deceived him into transferring Rs.52,49,425 online on various dates. Based on the complainant's written complaint, Kurud Police Station registered a case against the accused as aforementioned. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She further submit that the applicant has taken money upon being forced by other, the applicant has not used any amount, further the is no direct evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offence and the involvement of applicant is based on mere suspicion. She also submits that applicant is not named in the FIR, further he is young person and his entire future is at stake. The applicant is in jail since 20.01.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its 3 conclusion. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons deceived the complainant to the tune of Rs.52,49,425/- on various dates and later on they allegedly contacted the complainant and sent various photos and videos related to tantric practices through WhatsApp, they promised to bring prosperity and happiness into his life and claimed to possess spiritual powers that could alleviate his problems, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy and the fact that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons deceived the complainant to the tune of Rs.52,49,425/- on various dates and later on they allegedly contacted the complainant and sent various photos and videos related to tantric practices through WhatsApp, they promised to bring prosperity and happiness into his life and claimed to possess spiritual powers that could alleviate his problems, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 4 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Sunil Kumar @ Sonu @ Ajay Sharma, involved in Crime No. 505/2024, registered at Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 66 D of Information Technology Act, 2000, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance, Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil