1 CGHC010342002026 2026:CGHC:39069 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8201 of 2026 Subarno Ghosal S/o Bikash Chandra Ghosal Aged About 27 Years (Wrongly Mentioned In Cause Title Of Impugned Order As Vikas Ghoshal), R/o Shanti Kunj Brij Vihar, Near Ratlam Bagh, Raj Kishore Nagar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Chirmiri, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 03.09.2026 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. 175/2026 registered at Police Station - Chirmiri, District - M.C.B., (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (for short ‘BNS’) 2. As per the prosecution case in brief is that the complainant, namely Anwar Mohammad, lodged the First Information Report dated RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 23.04.2026, alleging that in early 2025, he met one Debrath Saha, who informed him that the present applicant was engaged in the business of tours and travels and was also involved in cryptocurrency trading and that he offered a minimum monthly return of 10% on every investment. Debrath Saha further informed the complainant that he himself had invested a certain amount with the applicant. Influenced by the said representation, the complainant met the applicant, who allegedly represented that he owned properties worth Rs. 8 to 10 crores and that his father and friends were also involved in the said business, besides claiming that several other persons had invested their money with him. Relying upon the assurances given by the applicant, the complainant transferred a total amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- in two instalments of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- on different dates from his Central Bank of India account, Chirmiri, bearing Account No. 3785077365, to the HDFC Bank account of the applicant bearing Account No. 50200045955671. It is further alleged that another person, namely Tapas Banerjee, was also induced by similar assurances and invested a sum of Rs. 28,00,000/- with the applicant, against which the applicant paid returns/profits for a few months; however, subsequently, he failed to pay the promised returns or refund the invested amount. Despite repeated meetings and requests, the applicant allegedly continued to give false assurances, pursuant to which the complainant came to know that he had been defrauded by the applicant. A copy of the FIR dated 23.04.2026 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-2. Thereafter, 3 the police commenced investigation, during which the statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded and the bank account details of the applicant, complainant and other investors were collected and analyzed. The applicant was also served with a notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; however, as he allegedly failed to cooperate with the investigation, he was arrested on 18.06.2026 and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who remanded him to judicial custody, and since then, he has been in custody. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court on 13.08.2026. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against him. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the material available on record and has rejected the bail application on considerations which are not sustainable in law. It is further contended that, as is evident from the FIR itself, the applicant had initially paid interest/returns on the amount allegedly invested, which indicates absence of any dishonest intention from the inception. According to the applicant, the amount received from the complainant was, in fact, a loan taken for his tours and travels business and no assurance regarding payment of 10% monthly returns was ever given by him. The applicant had been repaying the 4 said loan amount in installments, but owing to unforeseen financial difficulties and losses in his business, he could not repay the remaining amount, resulting in the present false complaint. He also submits that the aforesaid defence also finds support from the statement of Tapas Banerjee recorded during investigation, a copy whereof has been filed as ANNEXURE A-4. It is further submitted that the applicant was running a tours and travels business under the name and style of Subarno Logistics, which suffered substantial losses, due to which the applicant faced financial difficulties and was unable to repay the loan amounts. It is also submitted that similar criminal proceedings have been initiated against the applicant at Sarkanda Police Station and that his vehicles were allegedly seized by certain persons and the bank, pursuant to such disputes and criminal proceedings. He further submits that the applicant is only 27 years of age and has been in jail since 18.06.2026 and has already undergone about 75 days of incarceration, prolonged incarceration would adversely affect his future and livelihood, particularly when he is the only son of his aged parents and is required to look after and support them, the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court on 13.08.2026, and therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Hence, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the 5 competent Court. She further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, as he allegedly induced the complainant and other investors to invest substantial amounts by promising a monthly return of 10% and thereafter failed to repay the invested amounts. It is further submitted that the applicant failed to cooperate with the investigation despite notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and was consequently arrested. She also submits that the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, coupled with the bank transactions and other material collected during investigation, prima facie support the prosecution case. She further submits that the applicant has one more previous criminal antecedent which is pending. On these grounds, she prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing 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 allegations and the material available on record, and it is also relevant to take note of the fact that, as reflected from the FIR itself, the applicant had initially paid returns/profits on the amount received for some period, while the applicant has taken a specific defence that the amount was received as a loan for his tours and travels business and that he had been repaying the same in installments, but subsequently faced financial difficulties and 6 business losses. The said defence is also sought to be supported by the statement of Tapas Banerjee recorded during investigation. Further the fact that the applicant has been in jail since 18.06.2026 and has already undergone about 75 days of incarceration, the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court on 13.08.2026, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant appears to be necessary. Further, the applicant is a young person aged about 27 years and has stated that he is the only son of his aged parents, who are dependent upon his care and support. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, and having regard to the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant - Subarno Ghosal, involved in Crime No. 175/2026 registered at Police Station - Chirmiri, District - M.C.B., (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and one surety, subject to 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 7 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. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Rahul Dewangan