1 CGHC010317462026 2026:CGHC:38330 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7669 of 2026 Snehanshu Namdev S/o Rakesh Namdev (Wrongly Mentioned As Rakesh Nagmdev) Aged About 37 Years R/o Sai Vilas, Janjgiri, Police Station Kumhari, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Supela O.P. Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31/08/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1137/2025 registered at Police Station - Supela, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS and Section 10 of C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.09.01 12:45:14 +0530 2 Vishwanath Lakhan Mathur, lodged a written complaint at Police Chowki Smriti Nagar, Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.), stating that he is a resident of Indore (M.P.). It is alleged that, upon receiving information from his acquaintance, T. Vishnu, regarding companies namely Nisha Business Consultancy and Unique Investment, operating at Surya T.I. Mall, Bhilai, and offering monthly returns of 20% on investments in share trading, the complainant came into contact with their agents, namely Rajesh Verma, Ramesh Sahu and Snehanshu Namdeo. It is further alleged that, being induced by the assurance of high returns, the complainant initially invested a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20.05.2025 and received a return of Rs. 36,000/-. Thereafter, on 26.07.2025, he further invested a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- in two installments. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the aforesaid companies had closed their offices and their representatives had absconded, thereby causing financial loss to the complainant and cheating him. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR was registered on 22.09.2025, and thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that identically situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 02.07.2026, 07.05.2026, 29.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 5118/2026, 3408/2026, 6838/2026 and 6874/2026, respectivey. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 05.01.2026, the applicant has two criminal antecedents of the year 2025 under the BNS, which are pending against the applicant, further the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays 3 for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant allegedly was involved in the affairs of Nisha Business Consultancy and Unique Investment Solution and, by inducing the complainant and other investors with the promise of 20% monthly returns on share-market investments, dishonestly obtained money from them, including the complainant’s amount and thereafter the company shut down its operations, causing financial loss to the investors, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 05.01.2026, the fact that though the applicant allegedly induced the complainant and other investors with a promise of 20% monthly returns, dishonestly obtained their money, including complainant, and thereafter shut down the company, causing financial loss, but considering the fact that identically situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 02.07.2026, 07.05.2026, 29.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 5118/2026, 3408/2026, 6838/2026 and 6874/2026, respectively, the present applicant also has two criminal antecedents, which are of the year 2025 under the BNS and the same are pending, the charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 4 8. Let the Applicant- Snehanshu Namdev, involved in Crime No. 1137/2025 registered at Police Station - Supela, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS and Section 10 of C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 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, 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 in accordance with law. 5 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti