Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:10328 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1610 of 2025 Mayuresh Rajendra Gangurde S/o- Rajendra Gulal Gangurde Aged About 31 Years (Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet As Rajendra Gulab Gangurde), R/o- Sankeshwar Mandirashejari, Post- Kasbe Vanitaal, Dindori, District - Nashik, Maharashtra. versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O P.S- New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.03.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 430/2024, registered at Police Station : New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Abhishek Agrawal lodged a written report alleging that the holder of different RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 mobile numbers deceived him by falsely promising profits from share trading and thereby committed online fraud amounting to Rs.2,25,74,000/-. During the investigation, it was found that bank account number 60502491900 was used to credit the amount, and the account belonged to the applicant. After the investigation, the applicant/accused was arrested on 01.12.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant has never been associated with Gangurde Enterprises, in whose name the bank account was opened. Furthermore, the applicant is not aware that any bank account has been operated in his name at the Bank of Maharashtra. Additionally, the mobile number registered with that account does not belong to the applicant, and his KYC documents have been misused by the actual culprit. He also submits that there is no document on records which reflects that the applicant was involved with other co-accused in commission of crime even he is not the beneficiary or received any amount from the said company. He further submits that the applicant is aged about 31 years and he is in jail since 01.12.2024 and his parents are old aged and depends on him and he is only earning member of his family and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the 3 charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that complainant Abhishek Agrawal lodged a written report alleging that the holder of different mobile numbers deceived him by falsely promising profits from share trading and thereby committed online fraud amounting to Rs.2,25,74,000/-. During the investigation, it was found that bank account number 60502491900 was used to credit the amount, and the account belonged to the applicant, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 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 01.12.2024, though the allegation is that holder of different mobile numbers deceived the complainant by falsely promising profits from share trading and thereby committed online fraud by the applicant along with other co-accused persons, but the applicant has never been associated with Gangurde Enterprises, in whose name the bank account was opened, the applicant is not aware that any bank account has been operated in his name at the Bank of Maharashtra and further considering the fact that the mobile number registered with that account does not belong to the applicant, and his KYC documents have been misused by the actual culprit, he is not the beneficiary or received any amount from the said company, the applicant is aged about 31 years and his parents are old aged and depends on him and he is only earning member of his family, further the applicant has no criminal 4 antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Mayuresh Rajendra Gangurde, involved in Crime No. 430/2024, registered at Police Station : New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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 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 sufÏcient 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 5 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 sufÏcient 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. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan