1 CGHC010275202026 2026:CGHC:32711 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1161 of 2026 1 - Ishika C/o Vishnu Aged About 32 Years R/o Baiyanpur, Baiyanpur (207) Sonipat Haryana 2 - Azad Singh S/o Rishal Singh Aged About 56 Years Gali No 7, Patel Nagar Near Green Valley School Sonipat Haryana 3 - Vishnu Sihora Urf Vishal S/o Narendra Sihora Aged About 34 Years R/o J P I Baiyapara Sonipat Haryana ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Chakarbhata Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Karuna Masih, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.180/2026 registered at Police Station – Chakarbhata District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 338 & 3(5) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.30 12:18:49 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report on the basis of which FIR No. 180/2026 came to be registered. It is alleged that on 10.06.2024, the complainant received a Demand Draft of Rs. 103 crores from a person namely Grace David, purportedly residing in the United Kingdom, and that the said Demand Draft was under verification by the Union Bank of India (Customs Department), Union Bank of India, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi, and the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi. The prosecution further alleges that the complainant was repeatedly asked through various e-mail IDs to deposit money for clearance of the said Demand Draft. It is further the prosecution case that an employee of HDFC Bank advised the complainant to contact the present applicant, Naveen Joon, for bank-related formalities. Acting upon the said advice, the complainant allegedly contacted the applicant and transferred various amounts from her own accounts as well as the accounts of her family members into the account of the applicant, with the understanding that the said amounts would be further transferred to different persons for facilitating the clearance of the Demand Draft. On the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against the applicant and other accused persons, and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and have no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. It is contended that the original complaint was directed solely against the brother of the applicants, but during the course of investigation the 3 Investigating Officer, without any cogent material, arbitrarily implicated the applicants and other family members with a mala fide intention to exert undue pressure, rendering the investigation unfair and legally unsustainable. It is further submitted that applicant No. 1 is a school teacher by profession and applicant No. 3 is employed with Girnar Software Private Limited, both having established professions and no nexus with the complainant or the alleged transaction. Learned counsel further submits that the bank statements and financial records forming part of the charge-sheet do not disclose any transaction whatsoever between the complainant and the applicants, thereby demonstrating the absence of any prima facie material against them. It is also argued that the Investigating Officer has acted in violation of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014), by mechanically invoking graver offences to circumvent the statutory safeguards against arrest. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Anr., (2018) 7 SCC 72, to contend that the offence of forgery can be attributed only to the maker of the forged document and that mere familial relationship or alleged benefit is insufficient to constitute the offence. It is lastly submitted that a similarly situated co- accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 687/2026 and, therefore, the applicants are entitled to the benefit of parity. The applicants further undertake to furnish adequate surety, cooperate with the investigation/trial, and abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicants be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court finds that the role attributed to the present applicants is distinguishable from that of the main accused, Navin Kumar Joon. The prosecution allegations against the main accused are specific in nature, whereas no such overt or direct role has been attributed to the present applicants. Further, a similarly situated co-accused, namely, Pragya Shrivastava, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 687 of 2026 vide order dated 07.05.2026. Accordingly, the present applicants are also entitled to the benefit of parity. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Ishika, Azad Singh & Vishnu Sihora Urf Vishal, on executing a personal bond and one local surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. 5 (b) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve themself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav