1 2025:CGHC:8669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 245 of 2025 Gajendra Kumar Patel S/o Jayanti Bhai Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o Muktpur Mahesana, District- Mahesana (Gujarat) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Cyber Cell (Wrongly Mentioned As Range Cyber / cyber Range In The Order- Sheet), Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 19.02.2025 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. 155/2024, registered at Police Station – Cyber Cell, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that complainant Anand Agrawal filed a report at Dharamjaigarh Police Station. He alleged that after ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.02.20 19:08:15 +0530 2 watching an advertisement on Facebook, he joined Dropcoin 922. An account was created for him, and he was given a number as FTBD. The group admin, Martine Dropcoin, informed him via mobile number 917648910176 that they bought and sold shares in the market. Agrawal deposited Rs. 20,000/- in March 2024 and made subsequent deposits, increasing his share value to Rs. 36,65,700/-. He withdrew Rs. 3,55,000/-. All transactions were conducted through his bank account. The current share market value is reportedly Rs. 3,48,40,000/-. Agrawal alleged that when he tried to withdraw the amount, an agent named Sagar instructed him to deposit Rs. 7,21,000/- in the share market. He was later informed that the amount had been lost. Agrawal claimed that Sagar and another person committed fraud and cheating, receiving Rs. 41,06,524/-. The application stated that Agrawal was advised to deposit Rs. 62,00,000/- to recover his amount. Upon refusal, he was given an ultimatum to deposit Rs. 31,00,000/- by June 10, 2024. Agrawal realized he had been cheated. Based on Agrawal's report, an FIR was registered against group admin Geeta Bel, teacher admin Martine Dropcoin, and agent Sagar under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the IT Act. During the investigation, the case diary was handed over to the Cyber Cell. The Cyber Cell collected mobile call details, ATR reports, and bank statements, revealing that Agrawal had been cheated by individuals from Gujarat. Accused Hitesh Bhai Patel disclosed the names of Manish Patel and Gajendra Patel. The co-accused revealed that they committed fraud by inducing people to deposit money in the stock market, promising higher interest rates. The accused's mobile phones were seized, and 3 Sections 201 of the Indian Penal Code and 66(D) of the IT Act were added. Witness statements were recorded. A charge-sheet was filed against Hitesh Bhai Patel, Manish Patel, and Sachin Kumar. The charge-sheet mentioned that Gajendra Patel, Mitul Patel, and Chiragji Thakur were absconding, and a supplementary charge-sheet would be filed against them after their arrest and further investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the present applicant did not intend to commit any crime, either directly or indirectly. Since the applicant is not involved in the commission of the offense, he deserve to be granted anticipatory bail. No role has been attributed to the applicant in the crime in question, and no allegations have been made against them. He also submits that it is clear from the First Information Report that the complainant voluntarily joined a group and, after being satisfied with the potential earnings, deposited money into the group. The complainant was actively involved in attempting to make money, indicating that no offense was committed by the present applicant. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. He also submits that the present applicant was not involved in creating the WhatsApp group and has no connection to the names or mobile numbers mentioned in the FIR or the charge sheet submitted by the Cyber Range against the three accused persons. The applicant is only named in the memorandum statements of co-accused persons, which is not admissible evidence against the applicant. It is clear that the applicant is being wrongly implicated in the crime, despite having no attributed role. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. 4 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the present applicant along with other co-accused persons committed online fraud by inducing people to deposit money in the stock market, promising higher interest rates, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and material on record and from perusal of the case diary it appears that the present applicant along with other co-accused persons committed online fraud by inducing people to deposit money in the stock market, therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Gajendra Kumar Patel , involved in Crime No. 155/2024, registered at Police Station – Cyber Cell, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek