1 2025:CGHC:29517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 942 of 2025 • Krishnakant Maneriya S/o Parmanand Maneriya Aged About 31 Years R/o 1391, Dwarkapuri, District- Indore, M.P. ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Devendra Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Abhiyuday Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 01.07.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 346/2024, registered at Police Station – Devendra Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. The Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.10.2024, at around 10:15 AM, while the Complainant was discharging official duties, a VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA 2 phone call was received by the Complainant from an unknown number, i.e. +91-69757921125, wherein the caller falsely introduced himself as an official from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). That the caller informed the Complainant that a SIM card had allegedly been issued fraudulently in the Complainant's name from Shop No. 10, Dale Plaza, PN Road, Mumbai 400001, under the Airtel number 9898053277, which had been misused for unsolicited calls and unauthorized financial transactions through Canara Bank, Mahim Branch. That it was further alleged that an FIR bearing number MH 5621/0244 had been registered against the Complainant at Colaba Police Station, Mumbai, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act), and that a non-bailable warrant had been issued. The Complainant was then connected to a second call from +91-8348965540, purportedly belonging to Colaba Police Station. on this call, a person identifying himself as Vijay Khanna claimed that a bank account had been opened in the Complainant's name at Canara Bank, Mahim, through which transactions worth crores of rupees had taken place. He questioned the Complainant regarding alleged links with a certain Naresh Goyal, a jewelry dealer, and stated that the Complainant would be placed under online custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). That the said individual sent an alleged CBI-issued arrest warrant via WhatsApp, to the Complainant. Thereafter, another individual identifying himself as Rahul Gupta contacted the Complainant from mobile number 8106148901 Both these individuals, impersonating CBI officers, conducted detailed questioning and sought the Complainant's personal financial details, including bank accounts and investments. That they claimed that cooperation in the alleged investigation would prove the Complainant's innocence. Out of fear of arrest and believing their 3 representations, the Complainant complied. They instructed the Complainant to remain in a hotel room from 12:30 PM on 22.10.2024 to 23.10.2024 under online surveillance. on 23.10.2024, they organized a fake online court hearing and presented a forged order, citing Page No. 4, directing the Complainant to transfer 26.50 Lakhs. The Complainant transferred the amount from State Bank of India, Byron Bazaar Brand Branch, Raipur, Account No. 31275284668 (IFSC: SBIN0004440) to ICICI Bank. Account No. 121005001212 (A/c Name: Global Medipex, IFSC: ICIC000XXXX) through RTGS. That after the funds were transferred, the said individuals ceased all contact, terminated video calls, and stopped responding to the Complainant's messages and calls. That complainant then report the incident to the Devendra Nagar Police Station and F.I.R was registered on 13/11/2024, that in pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. the police arrested one Kuldeep Sahu, in whose accout the sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- was transferred that Kuldeep Sahu in his memorandum has stated that, that on 22/10/2024, the applicant transferred 25,00,000/- into his bank account and then called his saying that he had deposited 5,00,000 into my account and that his associate ₹ Mithun Patel would come & collect it, the applicant asked him to give the money to Mithun, and he would pay him 2,000/- for doing so. ₹ That on same day Mithun came, and accused Kuldeep Sahu gave him a cheque of 5,00,000/-, then Mithun Patel took the accused along to ₹ the State Bank of India, Branch-Indore and withdrew 5,00,000 ₹ using the cheque. Out of that, Mithun Patel gave Kuldeep Sahuonly 2,000 and took the rest of the money with him. ₹ 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He 4 further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of the Dwarikapuri District-Indore (M.P.) and was never absconding. The applicant had no knowledge that any offence had been registered against him. An application for anticipatory bail was filed, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court solely on the ground that the applicant had been absconding. He further argues that the applicant’s name has been implicated in the case solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which, in law, cannot be used as evidence against the applicant. He also submits that co-accused has already been granted default bail and charge- sheet was filed, wherein the applicant was shown as absconding. The evidence collected by the prosecution does not indicate any direct or indirect involvement of the applicant, except for the memorandum statement of the co-accused. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and he has been absconding and investigation against him is ongoing, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR, and from the perusal of the records 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 applicant is stated to be absconding during 5 the entire trial, thus, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma {(2014) 2 SCC 171}, has observed that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Krishna Kant Maneriya, involved in Crime No. 346/2024, registered at Police Station – Devendra Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali