1 2025:CGHC:55610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1777 of 2025 Baijnath Sahu S/o Shri Kamal Prasad Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Near Sai Mandir, Rawatpura Colony, Phase-2, Puraina Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O3cer, City Kotwali, District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 14.11.2025 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. 325/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Durg (C.G.) for the alleged commission of o:ence punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The brief facts of the case are that duly notarized written agreements, known as Rakam Prapti Abhiswikriti Patra, were executed between the complainants and the applicant, Mr. Baijnath Sahu, in 2024 for various amounts. These agreements stipulate that the speci=ed amounts would ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.17 15:24:16 +0530 2 be invested for trading purposes and that the resulting pro=ts would be disbursed to the complainants. As a security measure, the applicant also provided cheques for the equivalent amounts, which the complainants could utilize if the sums mentioned in the agreements were not repaid within the agreed time frame. Clause 3 of the Agreements / Rakam Prapti Abhiswikriti Patra clearly states that the complainants may =le a suit for recovery of the speci=ed amount before a competent court. The cheques were issued merely as security to safeguard the =nancial transaction between the complainants and the applicant. With respect to the principal complainant, the agreement records that he provided an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) through RTGS for professional purposes, i.e., to be invested in the market for pro=t through trading under the applicant’s =rm, Market Astrology. The complainant transferred this amount to generate additional income. Speci=cally, Mr. Sahil Dhir transferred Rs. 5,00,000/- on 11 October 2024 via NEFT for a period of one year. In connection with this transaction, he was also issued an undated cheque bearing No. 130352 of IndusInd Bank, Bhatagaon Branch, Raipur (C.G.), for the same amount. The FIR was lodged on 15.07.2025, even though the matter is purely civil in nature and arises out of a contractual transaction. The situation is similar in the other complaints. However, when the money was demanded back, the amount was not returned. Based on the written complaints submitted by the complainants, an o:ence under Section 318(4) of the B.N.S. was registered against the applicant, and the investigation is ongoing. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits the allegations levelled against the applicant are baseless, frivolous and devoid of any substance, as there is not even an iota of evidence to support the 3 prosecution case. He further submits that upon a bare perusal of the complaint lodged by the complainants, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. He submits that the agreement dated 11.10.2024 executed with the complainant, Sahil Dhir, was for a period of one year, i.e., it was to expire on 10.10.2025. However, the FIR has been lodged on 15.07.2025 — even before the expiry of the agreement period. The same is the case with the other complainants. This clearly shows that the registration of the FIR is wrongful, malicious, and without any prima facie evidence against the applicant. He submits that the primary grievance of the complainants is that the applicant has not provided the assured pro=ts, and hence they seek to recover the principal amount invested. This dispute is purely civil in nature, arising out of a =nancial/contractual transaction. Clause 3 of each agreement categorically provides the remedy available to the complainants. The appropriate remedies lie under the Speci=c Relief Act, a civil suit for recovery of money, or proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. He submits that the FIR has been maliciously =led with an ulterior motive to harass and exert undue pressure upon the applicant. He also submits that the applicant has returned some amounts to several complainants, as mentioned in the present bail application. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, he prays that anticipatory bail be granted to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that the applicant, on the pretext of providing extra pro=t, received various amounts from 14 persons, including the complainant in the present case, through share trading and ultimately failed to return the money. He also submits that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent of the similar nature, which shows that the 4 applicant is a habitual o:ender, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the o:ence and material on record in the case diary, and the fact that the applicant, on the pretext of providing extra pro=t, received various amounts from 14 persons, including the complainant in the present case, through share trading and ultimately failed to return the money, moreover, the fact that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent of the similar nature, which shows that the applicant is a habitual o:ender, therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Baijnath Sahu, involved in Crime No. 325/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Durg (C.G.) for the alleged commission of o:ence punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek