Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:12577 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2065 of 2025 Rajveer Singh S/o Late Gurmel Singh Aged About 22 Years at RDA Colony, Block- D/101, Hirapur, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh through S.H.O. P/S Amanaka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate, appears through video conferencing. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.03.2025 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. 433/2024, registered at Police Station : Amanaka, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the complainant, Dr. Prakash Gupta lodged a written complaint stating that between 28/02/2024 and 04/05/2024, he had been receiving messages and RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 calls from individuals named in his complaint. He was allegedly induced to invest in the stock market with promises of high returns. Acting on this inducement, he downloaded an app named “IAC” and, under the influence of the prime accused, Prakash Mittra, Vijay, Pawan Kumar, Gagandeep Sharma, and James Raj Singhania, he transferred a certain sum of money to various bank accounts provided by the accused. The complaint further alleges that he was later removed from a WhatsApp group, prompting him to file a written complaint with the concerned police station. Based on his complaint, an FIR bearing Crime No. 433/24 was registered under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the applicant was not named in the FIR, and even upon a perusal of the written complaint and the FIR, there is no mention of his involvement in the alleged crime. During the investigation, the prime accused were arrested, and their memorandum statements were recorded. Subsequently, the applicant was also arrested, and his memorandum statement was recorded. He also submits that a plain reading of the applicant’s memorandum statement clearly indicates that he had no connection with the alleged crime, as he was appointed as an employee just a month before his arrest. This itself suggests that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Furthermore, nothing incriminating has been seized or recovered from his possession. He further submits that the present applicant has no any previous criminal 3 antecedents and he is in jail since 17.12.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the applicant has committed fraud by taking money Rs.11,10,000/- from the complainant with promises of high returns to invest in the stock market and failed to return the money to the complainant. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the applicant has committed fraud by taking money from the complainant with promises of high returns to invest in the stock market, but he was appointed as an employee just a month before his arrest, nothing incriminating has been seized or recovered from his possession and further the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has no any previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 17.12.2024, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Rajveer Singh, involved in Crime No. 433/2024, registered at Police Station : Amanaka, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for 4 the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on furnishing 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 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 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 5 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. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice