1 2026:CGHC:7331 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 216 of 2026 Kapil Dubey S/o Hemant Dubey Aged About 25 Years R/o Katiya Para Bilaspur Police Station Sarkanda Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Police Station Sarkanda Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 10.02.2026 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. 1272/2023, registered at Police Station – Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the applicant, namely Kapil Dubey, was well known to the complainant. In the month of January 2022, the applicant persuaded the complainant to invest money in a trading ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.11 15:05:33 +0530 2 business. Accordingly, the complainant invested money on different dates and deposited the same into the bank accounts of the applicant, Kapil Dubey, as well as into the accounts of his father, Hemant Dubey, and his mother, Manisha Dubey, including their joint account and individual accounts. Insofar as the joint account of the applicant is concerned, the complainant, his wife, and his daughters made online payments amounting to Rs. 22,25,000/-, Rs. 24,86,000/-, Rs. 34,69,005/-, and Rs. 11,96,000/-, totaling Rs. 93,76,005/-. Against the aforesaid amount, an online payment of Rs. 89,07,005/- was returned to the complainant in his respective bank account. However, while lodging the report, the complainant alleged that a sum of Rs. 93,76,000/- was paid through online mode and an additional amount of Rs. 44,96,000/- was paid in cash to the son of the applicant. On the basis of these allegations, the complainant lodged a report alleging that the son of the applicant, along with his father and mother, cheated him of a total amount of Rs. 1,38,72,005/-, out of which only Rs. 89,07,005/- was returned. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against the applicant, and a charge- sheet was filed alleging that the applicant Kapil Dubey, along with his father Hemant Dubey and mother Manisha Dubey, failed to refund an amount of Rs. 49,65,105/-. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that in fact, the informant and his family members voluntarily invested their money for trading purposes and subsequently received back their amounts from the applicant, which is evident from the afÏdavit submitted by the concerned police authority. He also submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated, as the applicant has filed a detailed chart reflecting the transactions showing the amounts deposited into the bank accounts and the amounts 3 returned to the complainant. the transaction chart filed by the applicant clearly shows that the entire amount deposited by the complainant and his family members was duly returned through online transfers and cheques. The chart reflects a complete and transparent money trail, including the total amount of Rs. 14,40,000/- received in the joint account of Hemant Dubey and Manisha Dubey, which stands fully accounted for. These admitted transactions negate any dishonest intention on the part of the applicant and prima facie disprove the allegation of cheating. He also submits that the material available in the charge-sheet clearly indicates that the applicant Kapil Dubey never insisted the complainant to invest any money. Even the complainant has not stated that he paid any cash amount to the present applicant. The money received in the joint account of the parents of the applicant, namely Hemant Dubey and Manisha Dubey, is more than the amount deposited in the applicant’s account, and the same has already been refunded to the complainant through online transactions from the accounts of the applicant and his wife. It is further submitted that the wife of the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail, and the charge-sheet has been filed without annexing complete bank statements. Even if the charge-sheet is taken at its face value, it is evident that the entire amount deposited in the accounts of the applicant, his wife, and his parents has been refunded to the complainant through online mode or cheque. The only dispute pertains to an alleged cash transaction of Rs. 44,86,000/-, for which there is no material on record to show that the applicant ever received such cash. He further submits that the complainant has also failed to explain the source of the alleged cash amount or to whom it was allegedly paid. Hence, on mere presumption, no offence is made out against the present applicant, and no prima facie case exists. He submits that the co- 4 accused, namely Manisha Dubey (mother of the present applicant), has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 730/2024 vide order dated 07.08.2024, and the father of the applicant, Hemant Dubey, has been granted regular bail by this Court, in MCRC No. 2184/2025 vide order dated 03.04.2025. The role attributed to the present applicant is similar to that of the said co-accused; therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector oppose the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and submits that the applicant induced the complainant to invest in a trading business and received substantial amounts in his and his parents’ bank accounts. Although Rs. 93,76,005/- was transferred online, only Rs. 89,07,005/- was returned. The complainant has further alleged payment of Rs. 44,96,000/- in cash to the applicant. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to the 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, the material on record, and upon perusal of the case diary, it appears that the present applicant allegedly defrauded the complainant by inducing him to invest in a trading business. Though an amount of Rs. 89,07,005/- was returned, the complainant has further alleged payment of Rs. 44,96,000/- in cash to the applicant. Therefore, without commenting further on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Kapil Dubey, involved in Crime No. 1272/2023, registered at Police Station – Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek