1 CGHC010285522026 2026:CGHC:32968 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1216 of 2026 Amandeep Singh S/o Baljinder Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Street No. 03, Azad Nagar Dhuri Line, Millerganj, Tahsil Millerganj, District Ludhiana, Punjab ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. City Kotwali, Mungeli District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 100/2026 registered at Police Station – Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.31 10:54:27 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant’s wife, who had been operating a singing application for the last 5-6 years, came into contact with the applicant, who represented himself as a music video maker and YouTuber. During the course of their acquaintance, which further developed after a song recording trip to Ludhiana, the applicant allegedly induced the complainant and his wife to invest in short films being produced on his channel by assuring returns of three to four times the investment. Acting on such representations, the complainant’s wife allegedly transferred a total sum of Rs.17,00,000/- to the applicant on different occasions. It is alleged that the applicant returned only Rs.1,37,000/- in installments and thereafter failed to repay the remaining amount. Upon making inquiries, the complainant allegedly discovered that the applicant was neither a film director nor owned any studio, and that he had stopped responding to their calls. On these allegations, it is alleged that the applicant dishonestly induced the complainant and his wife to part with Rs.17,00,000/- and thereby committed the offence of cheating. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the prosecution story is founded merely on suspicion. It is contended that the applicant had known the complainant’s wife for the last 4-5 years and that the monetary transactions were part of a mutual investment arrangement relating to music albums and short films. It is further submitted that the complainant’s wife, 3 along with one Rohit Kumar Jatwar, induced the applicant to invest in their investment scheme on the assurance of higher returns, pursuant to which the applicant transferred an aggregate amount of Rs.9,40,240/- to different accounts, including those of Saahas Enterprises, Shamsher Singh and Pranjal Ghritlahre, as reflected in the bank statements. It is argued that when the applicant demanded return of the said amount, he was threatened with false implication. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged transactions pertain to the year 2024, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 17.03.2026 after an unexplained delay of about two years, casting serious doubt on the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the complainant himself had not transferred any amount to the applicant and is not directly concerned with the alleged transactions. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. On these grounds, prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that the applicant, by falsely representing himself as a music video maker and YouTuber, induced the complainant’s wife to invest Rs.17,00,000/- in the name of short film production on the assurance of three to four times returns and thereafter dishonestly misappropriated the amount. It is submitted that the investigation has revealed prima facie material against the applicant, including bank account details and call detail records. Learned State 4 counsel further contends that despite service of notice under the provisions of the BNSS, the applicant refused to accept the notice, declined to sign the relevant documents, and even after the competent Court directed him to appear before the Investigating Officer, he failed to do so and has not cooperated with the investigation. It is, therefore, argued that the applicant has deliberately evaded the investigation, custodial interrogation is necessary, and no exceptional circumstances exist for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer is made for rejection of the application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the nature of the allegations, the documents placed on record, the fact that the dispute primarily arises out of monetary transactions between the parties, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the applicant’s plea regarding transfer of certain amounts through banking channels, the fact that conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Amandeep Singh, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail 5 on the following conditions:- (a) He should 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. (b) He should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) They should appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Applicant and the sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He should not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Vaibhav