2025:CGHC:7362 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7557 of 2024 Order Reserved on 02.01.2025 Order delivered on 10.02.2025 Ajay Kumar Sahu S/o. Angiralal Sahu, Aged about 46 years, R/o. Behind Sai Tempel, Raipur, Mahadev Ghat, PS Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through, P.S. Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ..Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. GA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Order 1. This is the second bail filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested on 07.12.2023 in SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.02.10 18:09:16 +0530 connection with Crime No. 460 of 2023, registered at Police Station – Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under 420, 120-B of the IPC. The first bail application of the applicant was disposed of in view of subsequent additional charge sheet submitted by the prosecution vide order dated 22.07.2024 in M.Cr.C. No. 1425 of 2024. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Mukesh Soni lodged the report before Police Station DD Nagar, Raipur alleging that Shubhlal Sahu alias Sushil Sahu, and his accomplices Ajay Sahu, Umesh Patel, Jaiprakash Singh, Lokesh Sahu, by criminal conspiracy, have cheated him a sum of Rs 8,36,440 by alluring him to invest in crypto currency and promised him a profit of 15% per month. It is alleged that Rs. 7,22,700/- was given to Lokesh Sahu for investment and Pitambar Yadav, Rahul Bhosale, Hemand Soni, Satendra Verma, Sandeep Bhosale and Sanjay Mahto have also invested the money but the applicant did not provide benefit of the money then the complainant started demanding their money thereafter, the applicant and other co-accused stopped their mobile and also did not return the money to the victims, then it came to his knowledge that the accused persons induced the victims and received Rs. 8,367,440/- from the complainant. On the basis of complaint, FIR has been lodged against Sushil Sahu, his associates Ajay Sahu, Umesh Patel, Jaiprakash Singh, Lokesh Sahu and others for conspiring to cheat with the complainant of a total amount of Rs. 8,36,440/- in the name of investment in crypto currency through "Quick Trade, thereby the offence has been committed by the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he was not involved in the offence registered against him. He would further submit that first bail application of the present applicant filed vide M.Cr.C. No. 1425/2024 was disposed with liberty to revive the same after submission of additional chargesheet. He would further submit that the State has filed additional chargesheet and has collected some new material, therefore, he has filed second bail application. He would further submit that from bare perusal of the additional charge sheet no case is made out against the applicant. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 07.12.2023 and more than 1 years and 3 months has already passed, supplementary charge sheet has been filed on 25.11.2024, therefore, no custodial interrogation is required and would pray for releasing the applicant on bail. 4. On the other hand learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and would submit that the applicant along with co-accused cheated the victims and allured him for investing money in their company. He would further submit that the applicant and co-accused have cheated more than hundred persons causing huge financial misappropriation, therefore, the applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the statements of the investors recorded by the police wherein they have stated that the applicant along with the co-accused allured the victim for investing money in crypto currency through quick trade app which is in-fact imaginary and where the huge money kept is required to be investigated by the prosecution, therefore, custodial interrogation is very much necessary in this case to trace out, hide huge money which has been defalcated from the large number of victims, therefore, I am of the view that present is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh