1 2026:CGHC:21461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3408 of 2026 Shubham Kumar Gupta S/o Sheshnath Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o Kripal Nagar Kohka, Police Chowki- Smriti Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anmol gupta, Advocate For State/ Non-applicant : Ms. Vaishali Mahilang, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.1137/2025, registered at Police Chowki: Smriti Nagar Police Station: Supela District-Durg (C.G.) ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.08 16:35:46 +0530 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interests Act, 2005. 2. Case of the prosecution story, if brief, the complainant Vishwanath Lakhan Mathur lodged a written complaint at Police Chowki Smriti Nagar, Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.) stating that he is a resident of Indore (M.P.). It is alleged that upon information received from his acquaintance T. Vishnu regarding companies namely Nisha Business Consultancy and Unique Investment operating at Tea Surya Mall, Bhilai and offering monthly returns of 20% on investments in share trading, the complainant came in contact with agents Rajesh Verma, Ramesh Sahu and Snehanshu Namdeo. Being induced by the assurance of high returns, the complainant initially invested an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 20.05.2025 and received a return of Rs.36,000/-. Thereafter, on 26.07.2025, he further invested a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in two instalments. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the aforesaid companies had shut down their ofÏces and absconded, thereby causing financial loss and cheating to the complainant. On the basis of the said allegations, the present 3 FIR has been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific overt act has been attributed to him in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.1112/2026 arising out of Crime No.1123/2025, the details whereof have been mentioned in paragraph No.4(A) of the application. Learned counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and therefore custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. It is also submitted that although two criminal antecedents are pending against the applicant, he is in judicial custody and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, hence he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra,Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature involving cheating and financial fraud committed on the false assurance of high returns on investment. It is submitted that the material 4 collected during investigation prima facie establishes the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. Learned State counsel further submits that merely because the applicant has been granted bail in another case does not entitle him to bail in the present matter as each case is required to be considered on its own facts and evidence. It is also submitted that two criminal antecedents are pending against the applicant and there is apprehension that if released on bail, he may influence witnesses or hamper the trial proceedings. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature and gravity of the allegations, material available on record and further considering the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 05.01.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been filed, this Court finds that custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. It is also not in dispute that the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2026 passed 5 in MCRC No.1112/2026 arising out of Crime No.1123/2025 involving similar allegations. Though two criminal antecedents are pending against the applicant. I am inclined to allow the application. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Let applicant, Shubham Kumar Gupta involved in Crime No.1137/2025, registered at Police Chowki: Smriti Nagar Police Station: Supela District-Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interests Act, 2005, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 6 through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them 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 proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Arpan