1 CGHC010310002026 2026:CGHC:37376 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.7738 of 2026 Poonamchand Verma S/o Premchand Verma, Aged About 54 Years Resident Of Jabran Colony, Behind Community Hall, District - Indore, Madhyapradesh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Amanaka, District Raipur Commissionerate (C.G.) ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Barun Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.08.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 2nd Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.153/2025 registered at Police SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.08.20 17:39:58 +0530 2 Station – Amanaka, District Raipur Commissionerate (C.G.), for the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS as also under Section 66(D) of the IT Act. Earlier application was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2026 passed in M.Cr.C No.3288/2026. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.05.2025, complainant Rahul Kumar Rohit, a doctor by profession, lodged a report alleging that he came into contact with one Dr. Radhika Mukherjee through a matrimonial website, who induced him through mobile number 7357468406 to invest money in a forex trading platform, namely, “Plus 500 Global CS Trading Site”, assuring him of high financial returns. Acting upon such inducement, the complainant arranged funds by taking loans from various sources and invested a total amount of Rs.46,00,000/-. During investigation, it was found that an amount of Rs.50,000/- out of the said amount was transferred to the bank account of the present Applicant maintained with IDFC First Bank, Account No.52410197119, on the basis of which the Applicant came to be implicated in the present case. Based on these allegations, the aforesaid offences were registered against the present Applicant. Hence this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant 3 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of certain bank transactions, without any direct evidence connecting him with the alleged fraud or the syndicate involved therein. It is submitted that the Applicant is the sole proprietor of a wholesale onion and garlic trading firm, namely, “Yogesh Traders”, at Indore, Madhya Pradesh and the bank account in question is the business account of the said firm, which was entrusted to the co-accused for registration with the Madhya Pradesh E-Mandi portal for online interstate trading of agricultural produce, but was allegedly misused by the co-accused for unlawful activities. It is further submitted that the Applicant has no direct or indirect connection with the complainant or the alleged fraudulent transactions and is neither a beneficiary nor the mastermind of the alleged fraud. It is further submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence, which is already in possession of the investigating agency, the amount allegedly credited in the Applicant’s account is minimal and has already been frozen. He further submits that the allegation of the Applicant having sold his bank account to the co-accused for Rs.10,000/- is wholly unsupported, particularly when the account is a genuine business account having substantial legitimate transactions. 4 It is also submitted that the complainant has entered into a settlement with the Applicant and has expressed no objection to grant of bail and pursuant thereto the Applicant has already been acquitted of the offence under Section 317(2) of the BNS by the Trial Court. It is further submitted that the Applicant is in custody since 15.12.2025, whereas only two out of 9 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. It is lastly submitted that though the bail application of co-accused Kallu Mansuri was rejected by this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in SLP (Cr.) No.11724/2026, vide order dated 17.08.2026, has granted bail to the said co-accused, therefore, the present Applicant may also be granted regular bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature of allegations, the fact that the Applicant is in custody since 15.12.2025, only two out of nine prosecution witnesses have been examined, the conclusion of trial is likely to take 5 considerable time, the fact that the case is primarily based on documentary evidence which is already in possession of the investigating agency and the fact that co-accused Kallu Mansuri, whose bail application was rejected by this Court, has subsequently been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.08.2026 passed in SLP (Cr.) No.11724/2026, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let Applicant- Poonamchand Verma involved in Crime No. 153/2025 registered at Police Station – Amanaka, District Raipur Commissionerate (C.G.), for the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS as also under Section 66(D) of the IT Act be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her 6 counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law. 8. 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 Priya