1 2025:CGHC:23048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3834 of 2025 1 - Vikash Verma S/o Raja Ram Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Mujfar Nagar, Near Durga Temple Kakori, P.S. Kakori, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Parpodi, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.06.2025 1. This is the Second 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. 67/2024 registered at Police Station – Parpodi, District – Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.06.16 17:05:29 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainants, Mani Kumar Devangan lodged a complaint against unknown persons. The allegations are that the unknown individual induced the complainants through mobile phone calls, promising higher profits in the name of purchasing and selling shares and trading at discounted princes. The complainants were deceived into transferring a total of Rs. 33,00,000/- to different accounts online. The complainants traded from April 9, 2024 to April 29, 2024. A profit amount was shown in their trading account. On April 29, 2024, after buying shares, an order was placed to purchase shares worth Rs. 8 lakhs. However, instead of allotting shares worth Rs. 8 lakhs, shares worth Rs. 20 lakhs were allotted. The complainants were then asked to deposit Rs. 12,50,000/- to execute the order. Fearing fines and legal action from SEBI, the complainants deposited the amount. The trade was executed, any by May 2, 2024, there was Rs. 33,00,000/- in the trading account. Although the complainants did not place any further orders, shares worth of Rs. 65 lakhs were allotted. When queried, they were threatened with penalties and legal action by SEBI unless they deposited Rs. 32,00,000/-. After selling other shares, Rs. 13,40,000/-was left in the account. The complainants attempted to withdraw the amount but were unable to do so. The account balance subsequently showed zero, leading the complainants to suspect they were being cheated. Complainant Mani Kumar 3 Dewangan had previously withdrawn Rs. 1,000/- from the app on April 16, 2024, which was deposited into his account (No. 31710063871). Conversations with the fraudsters took place on mobile numbers 9935286856, 8869047564, 8093881043 and 7205906708. The complainants transferred Rs. 33,00,000/- to different accounts. Hence, this application. 3. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2024 passed in MCRC No. 8301/2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that if the whole prosecution story is accepted no offence is made out under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act because nothing has been seized from the present applicant and no amount was received from the present applicant account and the prosecution has no evidence to show that the present applicant called the complainant to deposit a money in a different account even that the mobile number which was written in the charge-sheet is not of the present applicant. He further submits that the entire prosecution story shows that the complainants has invested the money in share market and when the complainant suffer loss of money, therefore, he lodged the FIR against the unknown persons. He also submits that the present 4 applicant is in jail since 31.08.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is of the nature of online fraud, by which the complainants suffered of huge amount, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. Thus, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in the case diary, it transpires that the present case is of the nature of online fraud, by which the complainants suffered loss of huge amount and the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits and their appears to be no new ground for grant of bail, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, this second bail application of applicant – Vikash Verma involved in Crime No. 67/2024 registered at Police Station – Parpodi, District – Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act., is rejected at this 5 stage. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. 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 vaishali