1 CGHC010260202026 2026:CGHC:29664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1100 of 2026 Neeraj Kumar Sharma S/o Ram Prawesh Sharma, Aged About 43 Years R/o B-1/ 802, Jashpur Aiswarya Empire, Labhandi Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Maharastra Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Bajaj Nagar, District Nagpur City, (Maharashtra) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Sumit Singh, Deputy AG. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14/07/2026 1. This first transit/anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.244/2026 registered at Police Station – Bajaj Nagar, District - Nagpur City (Maharashtra), for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 34, 406 & 420 of the IPC. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.07.14 14:27:36 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant has lodged a complaint with the concerned Police Station stating that he and his father were induced by the accused persons to invest in the MDR Mudra cryptocurrency scheme on the promise of high monthly returns and substantial appreciation in the value of digital coins. It is alleged that acting upon such inducement, they invested a sum of Rs.18 lakhs between March, 2022 and November, 2022. When the accused persons failed to honour their assurances, prevented the complainant from withdrawing or liquidating the investment and did not refund the invested amount, the subject FIR was lodged. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence in question. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. In the year 2022-23, he was merely an investor on the MDR Mudra platform i.e. much prior to the lodging of the present complaint. The applicant has never met the complainant nor was he acquainted with him at any point of time. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is wholly unnecessary, as he is not named in the FIR. As such, the present transit/anticipatory bail application may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of transit/anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation made against the applicant and the fact that the applicant is not named in the subject FIR, this Court deems it appropriate to grant transit/anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant transit/anticipatory bail is allowed for a temporary period of two weeks. It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. Thereafter, he is at liberty to take recourse to law before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 8. This protection is granted for a period of two weeks from today to enable the applicant to approach the competent Court for seeking appropriate relief. /- - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Barve