1 2025:CGHC:18373 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 505 of 2025 1 - Ayush Patap Singh Alias Samir Thakur S/o Pramod Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Dhangaon (Ch), Tehsil And District- Mungeli, C.G. 2 - Ayush Thakur S/o Onkar Singh Thakur Aged About 23 Years R/o 27 Kholi Shivpur, Tehsil And District- Mungeli, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- City Kotwali, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, C.G. ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants :Mr. Pallaw Mishra, Advocate along with Mr. Ranjan Gupta, Kishan Kumar Kashyap, Advocates. For Non-Applicant :Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General. For Objector :Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this case have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Mr. Pallav Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he does not want to press the bail application of applicant No.1, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 namely, Ayush Pratap Singh alias Samir Thakur as he has already been released by the police on personal bond, hence, he does not want to press the present bail application for applicant No. 1. 3. Accordingly, the present bail application, so far as it relates to applicant No.1, namely, Ayush Pratap Singh alias Samir Thakur is concerned, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 4. Now, the present bail application remains only for applicant No.2, namely, Ayush Thakur. 5. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant No.2, namely Ayush Thakur, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.96/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Mungeli District - Mungeli (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 3(5), 61 and 111 of BNS. 6. Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Siddharth Baid has filed a written complaint before City Kotwali police station Mungeli, stating therein that accused Ayush Pratap Singh alias Samir Thakur, Ayush Thakur, Divyansh Thakur, Vijendra Jagtap, Lavjeet Singh, Vasu Pandey and Suraj Makkad collectively engaged in intimidation, threats, blackmailing, illegally extorting money and property, intimidated the complainant and his mother to forcibly register their land under an associate's name. Additionally, they fraudulently acquired approximately 60 lakhs through various checks and bank transactions. Upon this complaint, the 3 complainant's statement was recorded and F.I.R. was registered on 20.03.2025, Annexure A/7, against Ayush Pratap Singh alias Samir Thakur and others at City Kotwali police station Mungeli for offence under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 3(5), 61, and 111 of B.N.S. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant No.2 submits that the applicant /accused is young student aged about 23 years. According to reliable sources, it has come to his knowledge that on the complaint of the complainant, Siddharth Baid aged 20 years whom also had friendships with applicant No.2, a criminal case has been registered at City Kotwali Mungeli police station against the applicant No.2 along with other individuals. He further submits that P.S. City Kotwali has issued notice under Section 94 of B.N.S.S. on 21.03.2025 to applicant/accused Ayush thakur enquiring about the details of the bank transactions done by complainant Siddharth baid to applicant/accused Ayush thakur from date 05.11.2024 till 24.12.2024 total around Rs 10,59,600/-. The applicant/accused Ayush Thakur has filed the transaction details of all his bank accounts along with Statement summary, containing details of the transactions of his two bank accounts (one saving one current) of IDBI Bank from date 07.04.2023 till 22.03.2025. According to which a total of Rs 8,41.350/- has been transferred from these accounts of applicant/accused Ayush Thakur to different bank accounts of complainant Siddharth Baid for investments in a company called "Blackhole Events" to which complainant is associated with and works for, which later on turned out to be a fraud and malicious company and got shut down committing fraud against various 4 individuals. The complainant Siddharth Baid proposed to the applicant/accused Ayush Thakur, that if he had also invested in this event company, he would gain profits. Trusting the complainant, the applicant/accused Ayush Thakur agreed to invest in the company through Siddharth Baid. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the investment amount of the applicant/accused Ayush Thakur was transferred to the complainant Siddharth Baid's bank account and also given to him in cash. Instead of using this amount for investment, the complainant used it for personal gains. When the applicant/accused Ayush Thakur demanded his money back, the complainant initiated a dispute and to evade repayment, maliciously filed a false complaint against the applicants/accused. He lastly submits that the case of the present applicant is identical to that of applicant No.1- Ayush Pratap Singh alias Samir Thakur, who has already been released by Police on a personal bond. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant No.2. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the Non- applicant/State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant namely Ayush Thakur and submits that so far as case of applicant No.1 is concerned, there were no transactions available in his bank account made to the complainant, but from the bank account of the applicant No. 2, namely, Ayush Thakur, transactions 5 have been made to the complainant. Hence, his anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the objector opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant has been charged under serious offences of cheating and extortion, and the facts clearly shows how the complainant and his family were threatened, cheated, and forced to give up their money and property. He further submits that on the advice of some acquaintances Nihal Singh Sindhu, Ayush Srivastava, and Gurvinder Singh alias Laddu the complainant invested money in an event called Blackhole Event, which was being organized by their company. These people promised good returns. In this context, Ayush Thakur, Ayush Pratap Singh alias Sameer Thakur, and Raju Sahu came to know about the event from the Complainant. They also talked about investing in the event. The complainant then asked them to coordinate directly with Nihal, Ayush Srivastava, and Gurvinder. After that, the discussions and financial transactions took place between them, and the complainant had no role in those transactions. Later the event was conducted but Nihal, Ayush Srivastava, and Gurvinder Singh claimed they had suffered huge financial loss. A dispute started between them and Ayush Thakur, Ayush Pratap Singh, and Raju Sahu. Thereafter, the accused persons Ayush Thakur, Ayush Pratap Singh alias Sameer Thakur, Raju Sahu, and their group members Divyansh Thakur, Vijendra Jagtap, Luvjeet Singh, and Vasu Pandey started demanding money from the complainant in the name of recovering losses from the 6 Blackhole Event. Even though the complainant repeatedly told them that he had no involvement in those transactions, they started threatening to kill him and his mother. 10. Learned counsel for the objector further submits that the accused persons-Suraj Makkad, Ayush Pratap Singh alias Sameer Thakur, Raju Sahu, Ayush Thakur, Vasu Pandey, Akash Singh, and Shaurya also threatened to kill the Complainant at knifepoint and continued forcing registrations of lands owned by him and his mother. The nature and gravity of the offences committed by the applicants is severe. The actions of the accused reflect a clear criminal intent, involving organized extortion, fraudulent registration, misuse of financial instruments, and physical threats. The Complainant and his mother remain in constant fear for their lives. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 12. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in case diary, and the fact that applicant No.1 Ayush Pratap Singh has already been released by the Police on a personal bond and further the case of the applicant No.2 is identical to that of the applicant No.1 and a civil dispute is also pending between the complainant and the accused, as such, without further commenting 7 anything on merits, this Court find it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant No.2. 13. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant No.2- Ayush Thakur, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Kunal