1 2025:CGHC:30672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4009 of 2025 Aashish Agrawal S/o Kapil Agrawal Aged About 34 Years R/o Doiwala Thana - Doiwala District - Dehradun, Uttarakhand ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh P.S. Kharsia District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 04.07.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 9483 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. 412/2024, registered at Police Station- Kharsia District Raigarh, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Rajesh Gabel, an employee at SKS Power Plant Bij Coat, Darramunda (Coal Commercial), lodged a written complaint on 03.07.2024 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 stating that on 22.04.2024, he received a WhatsApp message containing a link promoting significant profits through share trading. On 09.03.2024, he joined the WhatsApp group and later downloaded the “Samara Proprietor App” from the Play Store. He began trading shares by linking his bank account and making online fund transfers, primarily interacting with “Samara Capital (Samara Pro),” represented by individuals including Vikram Agrawal (CEO) and others. Vikram Agrawal allegedly guided daily trading activity between 7:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. and pressured the complainant for additional payments. Between 09.03.2024 and 27.03.2024, the complainant made 25 transactions amounting to ₹91 lakhs. When he failed to deposit the additional amount, the firm stopped selling his shares, resulting in no returns or fund transfers. On 02.06.2024, the trading app ceased to function. Subsequently, he filed a cybercrime complaint on 05.06.2024 (Acknowledgement No. 23306240002932). It is also alleged that part of the defrauded money was transferred to the account of the Thapliyal Foundation, an NGO allegedly run by accused Kuldeep and Shekhar. The present applicant is accused of introducing the main accused Harsh to Shekhar, thereby facilitating the fraudulent scheme. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that there is no material on record to establish any prima facie case against the applicant, as he has no connection or involvement with Samara Capital or its alleged director, Vikram Agrawal. No part of the amount alleged to have been fraudulently 3 transacted by the complainant has been credited to the applicant’s bank account. It is further submitted that the applicant has no association with the Thapliyal Foundation, an NGO run by co- accused Kuldeep and Shekhar, and the police have illegally arrested him on the basis of false and baseless allegations. Counsel further argues that before effecting arrest, the police failed to issue any notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273] and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577]. Moreover, the applicant was neither informed of the grounds of arrest nor apprised of his rights, amounting to a violation of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that the applicant was handcuffed while being taken to court for remand and later to the hospital for medical examination, contrary to the directions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan v. State of Haryana [2025 INSC 162]. A photograph evidencing the handcuffing is annexed as Annexure A/2. He also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in jail since 08.05.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the present applicant is actively involved in a serious financial fraud wherein the complainant was duped of ₹91 lakhs through a fake online trading platform known as Samara Capital (Samara Pro). It is further 4 submitted that the applicant facilitated the crime by introducing the main accused Harsh to co-accused Shekhar, who is associated with the Thapliyal Foundation an NGO where part of the defrauded money was transferred. It is also pointed out that the applicant has two prior criminal antecedents of similar nature, reflecting a repeated involvement in economic offences, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the material available in the case diary, and the fact that the present applicant has been implicated for his alleged involvement in a large-scale financial fraud wherein the complainant was induced to invest ₹91 lakhs through an online share trading application Samara Capital under the pretext of high returns. The applicant is specifically alleged to have facilitated the offence by introducing the main accused Harsh to other co-accused persons, thereby playing an enabling role in the commission of the offence. Furthermore, it has come on record that the applicant has two prior criminal antecedents of similar nature, involving allegations of fraud and misappropriation. This indicates a habitual tendency to commit economic offences, thereby raising serious concerns about his conduct if released on bail. Further considering the fact that the applicant’s habitual nature, previous criminal background, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the 5 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail, accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Aashish Agrawal, involved in Crime No. 412/2024, registered at Police Station- Kharsia District Raigarh, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. 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 Rahul Dewangan