1 2025:CGHC:44700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6973 of 2025 • Shubham Sharma S/o Krishna Kumar Sharma Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. Lig- 03, Jharkhand Estate Housing Board Colony, Sarve Deepugarh Police Station Korra, District - Hazaribag Sadar, Hazaribag (Jharkhand) ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station City Kotwali Dhamtari District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.12/2024 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case in brief is that, the complainant Nishit Patel submitted a written report to the in-charge of the City Kotwali Police Station at VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.09.04 10:49:28 +0530 2 Dhamtari, alleging therein that he is the Manager of Purushottam Das Dhori Bhai & Company, located on Bastar Road at Dhamtari. On 14.04.2023, at 1:00 pm, two individuals, Raghvendra Soni and Vaibhav Kulkarni, visited his office and introduced themselves as the area head and vice president of Silver Line Power Station Private Limited, an E-vehicle manufacturing Company, from the States of Odisha and Chhattisgarh. They discussed the possibility of granting a distributorship to Patel's Company and, through them, began negotiations with the Company's to obtain the Director, Satyanand Panigrahi, distributorship for e-vehicles. Satyanand Panigrahi told Patel that to obtain the distributorship, he would need to deposit an advance of Rs 1,51,000/- into the Company's account. Patel transferred the amount to the Company's account on 27.04.2023, through RTGS. Subsequently, Satyanand Panigrahi sent Patel a distributor form, which he filled out and returned to the company. On 31.05.2023, the company sent an invoice proforma for e-vehicles worth Rs 37,37,384/-. The Company's Manager (applicant) assured Patel that if he deposited 30% of the amount into the Company's account, the order for the E-vehicles would be prepared. Patel then transferred Rs 9,50,000/- to the company's account through RTGS on 31.05.2023. 3. Later on the Company demanded an additional Rs. 25,00,000/- from Patel to obtain the distributorship and to enter into an agreement. Patel transferred the amount to the Company's account, but the company failed to deliver the E-vehicles and instead misled him. In this manner, the Company's director, Satyanand Panigrahi, and Managers, Shubham Sharma/present 3 applicant and Rajnikant Lanka, conspired to cheat Patel by providing false assurances and allurements, obtaining a total of Rs 36,01,000/-as an advance, and committing a fraud against him. Thereafter, the offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that applicant is working as Manager and he is getting the salary in lieu of the work preformed by him in the company apart from that there is no role attributed by the applicant for the commission of alleged offences. He also submits that the commercial dispute has been converted into a criminal case, further the complainant lodged an FIR without waiting for the prescribed period of 90-180 days for cancellation of the distributorship and refund of payment, as mentioned in the agreement, there is no evidence to show that the applicant is facilitating or indulging in cheating the Complainant. The emails and correspondence in the charge-sheet show that the Complainant did not receive the delivery of E- Vehicles, resulting in a loss to the applicant's Company. The batteries were not sent attached to the E-Vehicles due to safety concerns, but the Complainant failed to cooperate and assumed they had been cheated without adhering to the agreement. The applicant is in jail since 28.10.2024, so far as criminal antecedents of applicant is concerned, applicant has four criminal antecedents for the offence of identical nature and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in 4 the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons, conspired to cheat complainant by providing false assurances and allurements, obtaining a total of Rs.36,01,000/- as an advance, and committed a fraud against him, further applicant has four criminal antecedents and same are explained in paragraph 4-A of the bail application. She further submits that co-accused namely Satyanand Panigrahi bail application has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No.818 of 2025 vide order dated 29.01.2025, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, allegation levelled against the applicant and considering the fact that co-accused namely Satyanand Panigrahi bail application has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No.818 of 2025 vide order dated 29.01.2025, applicant has four criminal antecedents, it appears that he is habitual offender, this Court does not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Shubham Sharma, involved in Crime No.12/2024 registered at Police Station-City Kotwali Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 5 10. 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 vaishali