1 CGHC010298422026 2026:CGHC:41574 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7250 of 2026 Mukesh Gupta S/o Shri Vinod Gupta Aged About 46 Years R/o Ambe Colony, Gandhinagar P. S. Gandhinagar Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P. S. Manipur District Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy A.G. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY) Order on Board 24/09/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 132/2026 registered at Police Station Manipur, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Samhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an F.I.R. was lodged by Vidyacharan on 19.07.2026 to the effect that the applicant and other co-accused persons together floated a scheme of investing in share market and crypto currency and grabbed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.09.25 10:53:38 +0530 2 complainant with the assurance to refund Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Based on the F.I.R., the aforesaid offences were registered against the present applicant and other accused persons. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has already refunded the sum of Rs.10,000/-, which was invested by the complainant and thus, the matter has already been settled. He would further contend that the applicant is in jail since 19.07.2026; there is no criminal antecedent against the applicant and further, conclusion of the trial is likely to take some considerable time. Therefore, he would pray that the bail application may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application. 5. The complainant appeared through video conferencing and categorically stated that the dispute has already been resolved between the parties and he has no objection if the applicant is granted bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Having considered the fact that the dispute between the parties has already been resolved, the applicant has refunded the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant; the complainant appeared through video conferencing and admitted this fact and the applicant is in jail since 19.07.2026 and that, he has no criminal antecedent and further conclusion of trial may take some considerable time, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the instant bail application is 3 allowed. 8. Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) he 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; (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, & (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Anjani