NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8379 of 2025 Md. Irfan Ansari S/o Nizamuddin Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Datima, Police Station Bishrampur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Trhough Station House Officer, Police Station - Bhatagaon, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.10.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.77/2025, registered at Police Station : Bhatgaon District – Surajpur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 10 of C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 19.09.2025 passed in VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.10.28 14:23:13 +0530 MCRC No. 7130 of 2025. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that the applicant and another accused Vikendra Jagne took a total of Rs. 4,86,00,000/- from 26 investors. including applicant Dhajnath Devangan, Mahibuddin Ansari, Tasleem Ansari through bank and Phone Pay by transferring money to each other's accounts and by promising that they will get 15 percent interest on depositing money in Crypto Currency Bit Coin through their own mobile phones and the name of Bit Coin was changed to Ultravarsh UBC Coin. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that the complainant has already received the entire amount allegedly due from the applicant and has no further grievance against him. A written compromise/settlement agreement has been executed between the parties, and the complainant has also consented to the grant of bail to the applicant. In view of the settlement and restitution of the alleged amount, the continued custody of the applicant serves no useful purpose and would cause unnecessary hardship. The applicant has not committed any of the essential ingredients of the alleged offence and has neither deceived the complainant nor committed any act that constitutes the alleged crime. He has been implicated by Police Station Bhatgaon on false and baseless grounds, allegedly under the influence of the complainant, without any valid document or evidence. No goods or articles have been seized from the applicant, nor has any transaction been made from his account. The applicant has been involved in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. He is only alleged to have been involved in inducement, whereas there has never been any conversation or transaction to that effect, and he has been prosecuted solely on the basis of acquaintance. The applicant has never acted as an agent or given any instruction, either in writing or verbally, for fraudulent purposes, and has not received any money from anyone by deception, nor has he assisted any other person in investing or depositing any amount. The applicant has no criminal record and he is in jail since 24.05.2025, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant, along with the co-accused, took an amount of Rs. 4,86,00,000/- from 26 investors, including the complainant, through bank transfers and PhonePe transactions by transferring money to each other’s accounts. It is alleged that they promised the investors a 15% return on the amount deposited in cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) through their mobile phones and thereby cheated them, causing the complainant to suffer a huge financial loss. It is further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Vikendra Jagne, had his bail application rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 6027 of 2025, vide order dated 19.09.2025, hence, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the applicant, along with the co-accused, took an amount of Rs. 4,86,00,000/- from 26 investors, including the complainant, through bank transfers and PhonePe transactions by transferring money to each other’s accounts. They allegedly promised the investors a 15% return on the money deposited in cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) through their mobile phones and thereby cheated them, causing the complainant to suffer a huge financial loss as such, no new ground has been raised, and further, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations against the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the second bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant namely, Md. Irfan Ansari, involved in Crime No.77/2025, registered at Police Station : Bhatgaon District – Surajpur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 10 of C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav