1 / 4 2025:CGHC:56200 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1814 of 2025 1 - Shamshad Ansari S/o Abdul Rehman Ansari Aged About 33 Years Caste Muslim, R/o Village Bhawarahi, Near Adarsh Sishu School, Post Shivprasad Nagar, Police Post - Basdei, Police Station Surajpur, Tehsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 2 - Gulshan Parveen W/o Shamshad Ansari Aged About 28 Years Caste Muslim, R/o Village Bhawarahi, Near Adarsh Sishu School, Post Shivprasad Nagar, Police Post - Basdei, Police Station Surajpur, Tehsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ...Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Patna, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.11.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 have been filed by the applicants, who have apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 180/2025 registered at Police Station – Patna District – Koriya (C.G.) for the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.19 12:35:36 +0530 2 / 4 offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 294, 406, 420, 506 and Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the allegation against the applicants are that, due to mutual trust and relationship, applicant told the complainant, that they were trading business with Ashfaqullah, and said that any kind of money invested in the trading business would be returned double within 72 days. The complainant lured by the applicant transferred an amount of 26,00,000/- to the bank account of the applicant through RTGS. Upon the expiry of the deadline, when the complainant demanded the money, applicant refused to return the complainant's money, claiming that the money was in Raipur, Mumbai or Ranchi. After that applicant refused to answer the phone, giving vague answers, and then restoring to abusive language and threatening to kill the complainant. The complaint related to a transaction of 6,00,000/-, as such complaint is civil in nature and does not attract criminal action. In this regard, the complainant has submitted a photocopy of screenshot of a Whatsapp message sent to the applicant regarding the payment made via PhonePe. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that in the instant case that this Hon’ble Court in the same Crime No.108/2025 has already granted relief in MCRCA No.1256/2025 vide order dated 25.08.2025 and in MCRC No.7272/2025 and MCRC No.7277/2025 vide common order dated 17.09.2025, that the offences alleged are not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty and continued judicial custody would cause irreparable harm; that the applicant has 3 / 4 merely been accused of enticement without any conversation, transaction, or material suggesting such enticement, and the prosecution is based only on relationship without substantive evidence; that the applicant has not committed any essential ingredients of the alleged offence nor any fraudulent act; that he never issued any instruction orally or in writing as an agent, and has been involved falsely by the police without any valid documents or grounds and under the influence of the complainant that the applicant has never received any amount by deception, nor induced or assisted anyone to invest, nor deposited or accepted any amount in any form; that the applicant reserves his right to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing; that he is ready to furnish adequate surety and comply with all conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court and that being a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, there is no possibility of absconding or tampering with prosecution witnesses. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector opposed the anticipatory bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, it is noted that the co-accused, Gulshan Parveen, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRCA No. 1256/2025 vide order dated 25.08.2025, and the other accused persons have been granted regular bail in MCRC Nos. 7272/2025 and 7277/2025 vide order dated 17.09.2025. 4 / 4 Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Shamshad Ansari & Gulshan Parveen, on executing a personal bond and one local surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) Applicants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) Applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) Applicants shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav