1 2026:CGHC:5599 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 147 of 2026 • Shahjahan Khan S/o Late Maksed Khan Aged About 49 Years R/o Jagdevpur, Post D K Nagar, Harindaga, Thana Daimond Harbor, District - South 24 Pargana, West Bengal ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station - Kotwali Sarangarh, District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) Now. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 124/2018, registered at Police Station – Kotwali Sarangarh, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 405, 415, 418, 420, 424, 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 6, 10 of CPDI Act, and Section 3,4, 5 of Prime Chit Fund and Money Circulation Act, 1987. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant Hazari Ram was VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.02.02 16:35:50 +0530 2 lured by the co-accused Jeetram Bhardwaj and Mahadeva Soni at his home to invest in Kolkata Ware Industries Limited, promising him good returns by promising to deposit Rs. 5 lakh, and to receive Rs. 10,000 in the form of shares and Rs. 6 lakh on July 5, 2012. On July 5, 2012, the complainant deposited Rs. 5 lakh with the branch manager, Mahadeva Soni, at Garh Chowk Kesharwani Bhawan, Sarangarh. He received Rs. 10,000 each in shares for 20 months. In August 2013, the complainant again deposited Rs. 5 lakh at the Dabhra branch of the company, receiving Rs. 10,000 each for six months. Subsequently, the shares ceased to be distributed in March 2014, and the accused absconded. Following the complainant's complaint to the police station, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Kolkata, conducted an investigation and determined the company to be a fraudulent company. Following the investigation, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the co-accused Jeetram Bharti and Mahadeva Soni at the Sarangarh police station. Crime No. 124/2018, Sections 403, 405, 415, 418, 420, 424, 34 IPC and Sections 6, 10 of C.G.P.D.I. Act and under sections 3, 4, 5 of the Prime Chitfund and Money Circulation Act, 1987, the present accused Shahjahan Khan has been arrested on dated 05.12.2025 and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has neither induced nor cheated the complainant and has not received any amount from him in the name of investment. It is further submitted that the applicant is not a director of Kolkata Ware Industries Limited and no documentary 3 evidence has been seized by the prosecution to establish his involvement in the alleged offence. The implication of the applicant is based solely on the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which by itself has limited evidentiary value. Learned counsel further points out that as per the FIR, the complainant last paid money in August 2013, and even after the alleged stoppage of share distribution in March 2014, no complaint was lodged for a considerable period. It is also submitted that the complainant did not name the present applicant in the FIR. It is argued that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 05.12.2025, the investigation is substantially complete, and the trial is likely to take a long time for its conclusion. On these grounds, bail has been prayed for. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes the bail application and submits that the offence is serious in nature and involves financial fraud. It is contended that the applicant’s release on bail may adversely affect the prosecution case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. At this stage, it is evident that no direct allegation of inducement or receipt of money has been attributed to the present applicant. The prosecution has not placed on record any documentary material to prima facie establish that the applicant was a director or was actively involved in the affairs of the said company. The implication of the applicant appears to be primarily based on the memorandum of the co-accused, which, by itself, requires corroboration during trial. The alleged transactions pertain to the period 2013–2014, whereas the FIR has been lodged in the year 2018, and the present applicant was 4 not named in the FIR. The applicant has been in custody since 05.12.2025. The investigation does not appear to require further custodial interrogation of the applicant, and the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the nature of allegations, period of custody, absence of direct evidence, and settled principles governing grant of bail, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let applicant, Shahjahan Khan involved in Crime No.124/2018, registered at Police Station – Kotwali Sarangarh, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 405, 415, 418, 420, 424, 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 6, 10 of CPDI Act, and Section 3,4, 5 of Prime Chit Fund and Money Circulation Act, 1987, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, 5 proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed 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 applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali