1 2025:CGHC:28784 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 932 of 2025 Manshu Gupta S/o Pramod Gupta Aged About 26 Years R/o Mannu Chowk Tikrapara, P.S. City Kotwali, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Akash Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant /State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 27/06/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of BNSS, for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.119/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318(4), 3(5) of B.N.S. 2. As per the case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant had submitted a written report, stating that on 18.10.2024 at about KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 1PM, complainant received a unknown link from mobile no. 99829xxxxx and it was asked in the message to write a review on google Maps on doing so he will earn rewards. The complainant done the same as instructed in the message. After that he was again asked on Telegram to open new link and on opening the link it was asked to deposit Rs. 50,000/-, after receiving the amount that particular Telegram account got deleted. In this way complainant totally lost Rs. 1.10 lakhs from his account. In view of the above allegation FIR has been lodged against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the contents of the FIR do not make out a prima facie case against the applicant and the name of applicant came into light only after the memorandum statement of prime accused and no amount has been credited into his account, he was not even remotely involved in this case. Accordingly, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the complainant received a link on her mobile number 95168xxxxx from mobile number 99829xxxxx. An unknown person messaged her, providing an option to post reviews on Google Maps, stating that she would earn points for each review posted. Acting on this, the complainant clicked the link and posted reviews to earn points. Subsequently, she was sent another link via Telegram, with the promise of earning more points and posting 3 more reviews. The complainant was then added to a group named “Forms Beat” and was made to join a crypto currency link. Upon opening the link, an amount of ₹12,000/- was deducted from her bank account. When she inquired about the deduction via message, the person promised to return ₹23,000/-. Wanting to recover her money, the complainant, on being asked, transferred ₹50,000/- through Union Bank’s VYOM application using UPI. Thereafter, the said person deleted the Telegram ID. Thereafter, she reporting that a total of ₹1,10,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn from her account in multiple transactions of ₹33,000/-, ₹23,000/-, ₹5,000/-, and ₹50,000/-. The applicant/accused was operating the bank accounts of the co-accused Prakash Sonteke and Rohit Valmiki, and it is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant as an absconder. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 6. Taking into consideration the fact and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the present applicant and further from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the complainant received a link on her phone promising rewards for posting Google reviews and she clicked the link and later joined a Telegram group called "Forms Beat," where she was asked to join a cryptocurrency link and after doing so, 12,000/- was deducted ₹ from her bank account and the scammer promised to return 4 ₹23,000/- but instead convinced her to transfer 50,000/- more ₹ and the scammer then disappeared, and the complainant reported multiple fraudulent transactions totaling 1,10,000/-. The accused ₹ is alleged to have operated bank accounts linked to co-accused individuals and further the charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant as an absconder and has now come up before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 7. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, reported in {(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– Manshu Gupta, filed under Section 482 of BNSS,. involved in Crime No.119/2025, registered at Police Station –City Kotwali, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318(4), 3(5) of B.N.S., is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal