1 2026:CGHC:24458 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 783 of 2026 1 - Mohd. Nazar S/o Umar Aged About 50 Years R/o 905, Khalapar, South Thana, Khalapar, District- Muzzafar (U.P.) 2 - Mohd. Suhail S/o Mohd. Nazar Aged About 26 Years R/o 988 Khalapar, South Thana, Khalapar, District- Muzzafar (U.P.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Vidhansabha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 345/2025 registered at Police Station – Vidhansabha, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of BNS 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.07.2025, the complainant lodged written report in the concerned police station alleging that the accused persons threatened the complainant and falsely took her to Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.06.18 18:10:59 +0530 2 digital arrest. Thereafter, the co-accused person extorted an amount of Rs. 2,83,65,000/- from the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, police authorities registered an FIR for the Offence U/s 318(4), 3(5) of B.N.S. in crime no.345/2025 at Police Station- Vidhansabha (C.G.) 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicants themselves are victims of cyber fraud and had no role in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.6,15,000/- was transferred into the account of M/s NSA Agro Organic Private Limited, of which the applicants are proprietors, after they had shared their bank account details with a person namely Zara, who had assured them of arranging a business loan. The said person, in connivance with other accused persons, allegedly misused the applicants' bank account for routing the amount obtained from the complainant and thereafter withdrawn the entire amount, which is evident from the WhatsApp chats exchanged between the applicants and the said Zara. He further submits that the applicants came to know about the fraud only after their bank account was frozen, whereupon they immediately approached the police authorities and, when no action was taken, filed a complaint under Section 173(4) of the BNSS before the competent Court at Muzaffarpur. It is further submitted that a co-accused has already been granted regular bail by this Court and the case of the present applicants stands on a better footing. The applicants have cooperated with the investigation, have themselves reported the fraud to the authorities, and are ready to abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicants be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that the amount defrauded from the complainant was transferred to the bank account of the company owned by the applicants and, therefore, their involvement in the offence cannot be ruled out at this stage. He further submits that the investigation is still in progress and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicants are not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is prayed that the application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the fact that the applicants have filed a complaint alleging that they themselves were victims of cyber fraud and that no order taking cognizance has yet been passed on the said complaint, this Court is of the considered opinion that such circumstances, by themselves, are not sufficient to entitle the applicants to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail, particularly when the amount allegedly defrauded from the complainant was transferred to the bank account of the company owned by the applicants and the investigation is still in progress. In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Jyoti