1 2026:CGHC:1289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 137 of 2026 1 - Lalit Kumar S/o Surendra Singh, Aged About 32 Years R/o Near Ajay Kirana Store, Bablus House, Dharnaka Mhow, P.S. Kotwali Mhow, District Indore (M.P.) 2 - Bablu @ Kamaljeet Singh Chauuhan, S/o Dilawar Singh Chauhan, Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 76-A, Ayodhyapuri Colony, Kodariya, Dharnaka, Mhow, P.S. Kotwali Mhow, District Indore (M.P.). 3 - Arpit Salve, S/o Santosh Salve, Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. C-6, Girnar City Phase-1, Gujarkhed Mhow, P.S. Kotwali Mhow, Indore, District Indore (M.P.). 4 - Rohit Nishad S/o Bahadur Nishad, Aged About 25 Years R/o Shiv Nagar Colony, Opposite Om Shanti Bhawan, Dharnaka Mhow, P.S. Kotwali, Mhow, District Indore (M.P.). ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O;cer Police Station Cyber Police Station District Bilaspur C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Vikram Dixit, Advocate. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08/01/2026 1. This is the ?rst bail application ?led under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 569/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the oAence punishable under Sections 61(2), 317(5), 318(4), 3(5), 111(4), 323, 238 of BNS and Section 66D of I.T. Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant appeared before the Civil Lines Police Station on 5 May 2025 and submitted a written complaint stating that she had a demat account in Mumbai bearing Account No. GS785096378. She had opened and activated the said account at the behest of Pandeyji. Initially, she deposited an amount of ₹2,00,000/- into the account to ensure smooth business operations, and subsequently deposited additional amounts. Pandeyji assured the complainant of substantial pro?ts, claiming that gold prices were likely to rise and that investment through the said demat account would yield high returns. Acting on his assurances, the complainant transferred a total amount of ₹59,87,997/- on various dates. Subsequently, when the withdrawal amount did not get credited to her account, the complainant became suspicious. Thereafter, she contacted the applicant, Arpit, on his mobile number 9201635628, which had been provided to her by Kunal Sharma, to inquire about the transfer of funds. The applicant asked her to check the account and assured her that he 3 would inform her accordingly. However, thereafter, his mobile phone was switched oA. Upon further inquiry, it was revealed that the oAence of fraud had been committed by opening a demat account in the name of the complainant and inducing her to invest money on false assurances of earning high pro?ts from business investments. Based upon such, the aforesaid oAences have been registered against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants respectfully submits that the applicants have not committed the alleged oAence and have been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the statements of the complainant, without any cogent, independent, or reliable material to establish dishonest intention or mens rea from the inception of the transaction. The entire prosecution case arises out of investments made through a demat account with an expectation of pro?t and, even if the allegations are taken at face value, the dispute is purely commercial in nature relating to investment returns, which has been wrongly given a criminal colour. The prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the applicants directly induced the complainant to transfer money with any dishonest intention, as mere failure to ensure returns on an investment does not constitute the oAence of cheating. Furthermore, the complainant has herself admitted before the trial Court, by way of an a;davit, that an amount of ₹15,00,000/- has been returned to her by the applicants, which clearly reEects their bona ?des and negates any allegation of deliberate fraud. It is also pertinent that the complainant voluntarily appeared before the trial Court and 4 categorically stated that she has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicants, and therefore, their continued incarceration is unnecessary and oppressive. Moreover, the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been ?led before the competent Court, hence, no further custodial interrogation is required and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Objector submits that he has no objection, if granted bail to the applicants. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations and the fact that the dispute arises out of a transaction relating to investment through a demat account, the partial refund of ₹15,00,000/- made to the complainant, her categorical statement before the trial Court expressing no objection to the grant of bail and further taking into account that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been ?led, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and without commenting on the merits of the matter, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants are allowed. 5 9. Let the Applicants-Lalit Kumar, Bablu @ Kamaljeet Singh Chauuhan, Arpit Salve and Rohit Nishad, involved in Crime No. 569/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the oAence punishable under Sections 61(2), 317(5), 318(4), 3(5), 111(4), 323, 238 of BNS and Section 66D of I.T. Act, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with local two sureties (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall ?le an undertaking to the eAect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates ?xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date ?xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without su;cient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date ?xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 6 (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates ?xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberated or without su;cient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal