1 2026:CGHC:23773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 440 of 2026 Jeetram Bharti S/o Ramesh Bharti, Aged About 40 Years R/o Vill.- Thalipali, P.S. And Tah. Sarsiva, Dist.- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- City Kotwali Sarangarh, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 15.06.2026 1. Earlier, the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability by this Court on 23.03.2026, and against the said order the applicant preferred an SLP being Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 8241/2026 before the Hon’ble Apex Court, and on 07.05.2026 the same was disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court setting aside the order dated 23.03.2026 and the matter was remanded back with the direction that the same is to be decided on merits. 2. The applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 124/2018, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali Sarangarh, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 punishable under Section 403, 405, 415, 418, 420, 424 and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Prize Chitfund and Money Circulation Act, 1987. 3. As per the prosecution story in brief, is that According to the prosecution case, the complainant, Hazari Ram, was approached at his residence by the accused, Jitram Bhardwaj and Mahadeva Soni, who induced him to invest money in Kolkata Ware Industries Limited Company by promising lucrative returns. They represented that an investment of Rs.5,00,000 would yield a monthly return of Rs.10,000 in the form of shares and an additional benefit of Rs.6,00,000. Acting upon their representations, the complainant deposited Rs.5,00,000 on 05 July 2012 with Branch Manager Mahadeva Soni at Kesharwani Bhawan, Garh Chowk, Sarangarh. He received monthly returns of Rs.10,000 for approximately 20 months. Subsequently, in August 2013, he invested another Rs.5,00,000 at the company’s Dabhra branch, for which he received monthly returns of Rs.10,000 for six months. Thereafter, from March 2014 onwards, the payments stopped and the accused absconded. Upon lodging a complaint with the police regarding the company, an inquiry was conducted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Kolkata, which revealed that the company was fraudulent. Following the complaint inquiry, an FIR was registered at Police Station Sarangarh against accused Jeetram Bhardwaj and Mahadeva Soni. Hence, this bail application. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is completely innocent and there is no such documentary evidence to 3 show that the applicant is involved in the crime in question. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant has come into light from the memorandum statement of the co-accused Mahadeva Soni who was the Branch Manager of the company in question, and it is further submitted that the applicant is one of the investor, and it is argued that one of the co-accused namely Shahjahan Khan has already been allowed regular bail by this Court on 31.01.2026 in MCRC No.147/2026. It is further submitted that the money which has been deposited by the complainant, the same has also been returned to the complainant, and the averment regarding the same is also mentioned in the FIR. It is submitted that the FIR was registered in the 2018, and the name of the applicant has come into light from the memorandum statement of the co-accused in the year 2025. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present case pertains to a well-planned economic offence involving inducement of innocent investors on the false promise of assured and lucrative returns. It is submitted that the applicant, along with the co-accused, actively approached the complainant and persuaded him to invest substantial amounts in the name of Kolkata Ware Industries Limited Company by assuring fixed monthly returns and additional financial benefits. Acting upon such inducement, the complainant invested an aggregate amount of Rs.10,00,000 at different stages. Although certain initial payments were allegedly made to gain the confidence of the investor and maintain the façade of legitimacy, subsequently the payments were discontinued 4 and the accused persons absconded. Learned State counsel further submits that upon inquiry conducted pursuant to the complaint, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Kolkata found the company to be fraudulent, which clearly reflects the deceptive and organized nature of the alleged activities. It is argued that the applicant played an active role in inducing the complainant and facilitating the collection of money and, therefore, cannot claim innocence at this stage. It is further submitted that the applicant cannot claim any parity, as this is an anticipatory bail application and the co-accused Shahjahan Khan was firstly arrested and thereafter, he was granted regular bail by this Court on 31.01.2026 in MCRC No.147/2026. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, the magnitude of the financial fraud, the possibility of influencing witnesses and the likelihood of hampering the investigation/trial, it is prayed that the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the material placed before this Court, it appears that the allegations do not merely pertain to an isolated monetary transaction but relate to a structured financial arrangement whereby the complainant was allegedly induced to invest substantial amounts on the promise of assured and lucrative returns. The prosecution case indicates that investments were made in phases and certain returns were initially paid to maintain confidence and create an appearance of legitimacy, after which the payments were discontinued. The inquiry conducted pursuant to the complaint allegedly revealed the company in 5 question to be fraudulent. The allegations, therefore, prima facie disclose elements of a planned economic offence involving inducement and collection of public money. This Court also takes note of the submission of the prosecution that the role attributed to the present applicant is not merely based upon suspicion but that he is alleged to have actively participated in approaching the complainant and facilitating the investment process. At this stage, the contention of the applicant that his name has surfaced only from the memorandum statement of the co-accused and that he himself was merely an investor are matters of defence, which require appreciation of evidence during investigation and trial and cannot be conclusively considered. 8. So far as the plea of parity raised on the basis of grant of regular bail to co-accused Shahjahan Khan is concerned, the same does not persuade this Court, as the said co-accused was granted regular bail after arrest, whereas the present application is one seeking anticipatory bail, where the considerations governing exercise of discretion are materially different. Economic offences, by their very nature, stand on a distinct footing as they affect public confidence and involve larger societal implications. 9. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, the nature of accusation, the manner in which the alleged transactions were carried out, the requirement of effective investigation and the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding possible influence upon witnesses and interference with the course of investigation, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 6 10. Accordingly, the Second Anticipatory Bail application of the applicant – Jeetram Bharti, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 124/2018, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali Sarangarh, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 403, 405, 415, 418, 420, 424 and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Prize Chitfund and Money Circulation Act, 1987, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar