1 2025:CGHC:19990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3368 of 2025 M. Harshvardhan Reddy S/o M. Venkat Reddy Aged About 32 Years R/o 2/11, Main Road, Venkat Reddy Pali, Penukonda, Anantpur (Andhra Pradesh), Present Address- B/307, Cross Grande Laurenza, Elenka Banglore (Karnataka). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Vaishali Nagar District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. For complainant/objector : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.05.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 27/2025, registered at Police Station : Vaishali Nagar District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, it is alleged in the written complaint that the complainant, T. Rajeshwar Rai, has been RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 engaged in online stock market trading for the past five years. His maternal uncle, R. Ravi, and his friend, Ramesh, were also involved in online trading for several years. They informed him that they had been trading in collaboration with one M. Harshvardhan Reddy (the applicant), which had yielded them substantial profits. Subsequently, the complainant contacted M. Harshvardhan Reddy (the applicant) over the phone and became acquainted with him. The applicant assured the complainant that he would earn profits through online trading and persuaded him to open a Proprietary Trading Account, promising a return of 10–20% without any brokerage charges. However, the applicant stated that a minimum investment of Rs.20 lakhs was required to activate the said trading account. Relying on these representations, the complainant transferred a total of Rs.20 lakhs from his Federal Bank account to the current account of Film Wave Labs Private Limited, held in the name of the applicant, M. Harshvardhan Reddy. The transactions were carried out via RTGS and IMBS. After a prolonged wait, the applicant failed to open the trading account. When the complainant demanded a refund, the applicant began evading the matter and eventually switched off his mobile phone, cutting off all communication. Suspecting fraudulent activity, the complainant made inquiries with his uncle and friends, only to discover that they too had been defrauded of Rs. 2 crores by the same accused. Based on the complainant’s written complaint, Police Station Vaishali Nagar registered FIR No. 27/2025 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and has filed the charge sheet accordingly. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the complainant’s claims are based on misunderstanding and miscommunication rather than deliberate cheating. The present applicant was engaged in legitimate trading activities and had no fraudulent intent. He further submits that though the applicant is involved in two other cases of a similar nature, one in Tiruppur City, Madras, and the other in Vijayawada, but he has already been granted bail in both cases by the Madras High Court and the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Copies of the said bail orders have been annexed as Annexure-A2. He also submits that the present applicant is in jail since 14.02.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant/objector opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the applicant assured the complainant that he would earn profits through online trading and persuaded him to open a Proprietary Trading Account, promising a return of 10–20% without any brokerage charges and after a prolonged wait, the applicant failed to open the trading account. When the complainant demanded a refund, the applicant began evading the matter and eventually switched off his mobile phone, cutting off all communication. It is further submitted that the applicant and other accused had been 4 defrauded of Rs. 2 crores by the same accused. It is further submitted that the applicant has two criminal antecedents of a similar nature, and six other cases registered against him under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which shows that he is a habitual offender. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 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 that though the allegation is that the applicant/accused was involved in fraudulent activity, where the complainant was deceived into transferring Rs. 20 lakhs under the pretext of earning money and the applicant is involved in two other cases of a similar nature, one in Tiruppur City, Madras, and the other in Vijayawada, but he has already been granted bail in both cases by the Madras High Court and the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, copies of the said bail orders have been annexed as Annexure-A2, further the present applicant is in jail since 14.02.2025, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – M. Harshvardhan Reddy, involved in Crime No. 27/2025, registered at Police Station : Vaishali Nagar District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with 5 two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) 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 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fail 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. (iv) 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 6 opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan