1 CGHC010214632026 2026:CGHC:29033 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5147 of 2026 Ashish Gupta S/o Shri Somnath Gupta Aged About 37 Years Occupation- Business, R/o 581, Sector-1 Rohtak, Thana - Old Sabzi Mandi, Tehsil- Rohtak, District- Rohtak (Haryana) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Cyber Range Police Station Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh K. Pandey, Dy. Adv. General and Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Police Station – Cyber Range, Police Station Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 317(4), 3(5) and 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 21(1), 21(2) and Section 21(3) of the BUDS Act. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.13 11:47:21 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, Ravi Mohan Goswami, aged about 44 years, a resident of Sadar Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh), submitted a written complaint before the In- charge, Cyber Range Police Station, stating that he is a share market trader. He alleged that, during the year 2024, he received calls from several unknown mobile numbers, including 8570064555, 8424855648, 8395943211, and 9991991448, whereby the callers induced him to invest money in share trading by promising high and assured returns. It is further alleged that the said persons persuaded the complainant to install applications, namely, “Money Trade 365” and “Sky Trade,” from the Play Store and thereafter instructed him to deposit money through QR codes and online transfers. The complainant further alleged that, after initially displaying fictitious profits in the said applications, the accused persons induced him to transfer a cumulative amount of Rs. 20,15,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are conspicuously absent. The complainant lodged the complaint on 03.03.2025, yet voluntarily continued to transfer money on 03.04.2025, 04.04.2025, and 08.04.2025. Such conduct is wholly inconsistent with the allegation of deception or dishonest inducement and clearly demonstrates that the complainant was fully aware of the financial transactions. The subsequent voluntary transfers, even after lodging the complaint, seriously undermine the prosecution’s allegation that the complainant had been deceived from the very inception. He also submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the applicant’s arrest is ex facie illegal, as the Investigating Officer failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal 3 Procedure, 1973, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. No notice under Section 41A CrPC was ever served upon the applicant, despite the remand application falsely asserting otherwise. There is neither any acknowledgment nor any proof of service on record. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer failed to record the satisfaction contemplated under Section 41(1)(b) CrPC, and the reasons necessitating the applicant’s arrest were neither recorded nor communicated. Such non-compliance vitiates the arrest itself, and the continued detention of the applicant on the basis of an illegal arrest is wholly unjustified. He submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that, although the FIR alleges a total fraud of Rs. 20,00,000/-, a bare perusal of the FIR and the prosecution material reveals that the complainant himself transferred only Rs. 1,00,000/- from his own bank account. The remaining alleged transfers were made from the bank accounts of third parties, none of whom has lodged any complaint, nor have they been cited or examined as witnesses to substantiate the prosecution case. This glaring inconsistency strikes at the very root of the prosecution story and renders the allegation of a cheating transaction involving Rs. 20,00,000/- inherently doubtful. He also submits that the learned trial Court further failed to consider that none of the alleged cheated amount was ever credited to the applicant’s bank account. The prosecution material itself indicates that the transactions were routed through accounts belonging to third parties, whose account holders have neither been properly examined during the investigation nor arrayed as accused. In the absence of any direct financial benefit accruing to the applicant, the allegation of his involvement remains wholly unsubstantiated. He submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR, nor does the FIR contain any 4 allegation of inducement, participation, communication, or any overt act attributable to him. His implication rests solely upon conjectures and assumptions, which cannot constitute a valid basis for depriving him of his personal liberty. He submits that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. It is respectfully submitted that the co-accused persons, namely, Rohan Kandera (MCRC No. 10335/2025), Vishal Yadav (MCRC No. 10457/2025), Chetan (MCRC No. 10048/2025), and Sandeep and Saurabh (MCRC No. 10072/2025), have already been enlarged on bail by the this Court vide common order dated 05.02.2026. The role attributed to the present applicant is identical and similar to that attributed to the aforesaid co-accused persons. Accordingly, on the well- settled principle of parity, the present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that, according to the prosecution case, the applicant, along with the other co- accused persons, induced the complainant to invest in share trading by promising high returns through fake trading applications and fraudulently obtained an amount of Rs. 20,15,000/- from him. He submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. He further submits that the applicant has 03 criminal antecedents of a similar nature registered in the States of Delhi, Haryana, and Maharashtra, which demonstrate that he is a habitual offender. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the 5 applicant in inducing the complainant to invest in fake share trading applications and allegedly defrauding him of Rs. 20,15,000/-, the material collected during the investigation, and further considering that the applicant has 03 inter-State criminal antecedents of a similar nature, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for grant of regular bail is made out at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Ashish Gupta, involved in Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Police Station – Cyber Range, Police Station Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 317(4), 3(5) and 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 21(1), 21(2) and Section 21(3) of the BUDS Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. 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 Abhishek