MUKESH KUMAR DAS vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1
HARNEET
KAUR
Digitally signed by
HARNEET KAUR
Date: 2026.11.05
11:21:45 +0530

CGHC010365072026 2026:CGHC:46731
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9090 of 2026
1 - Mukesh Kumar Das S/o Satyanarayan Das Aged About 29 Years
R/o -Ward No. 13, Vill. Post Haipur, P.S. Rosera, Dist. Samastipur
(Bihar), Hall Mukam Ward 19, Urkura, Bajrang Nagar Verma House
Mahi Plaza Road Raipur (C.G.)
--- Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Line District -
Bilaspur (C.G.)
--- Non-applicant

For Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate
For Non-applicant
: Mr. Keshav Gupta, G.A.
/State
For Objector/
: Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate
Complainant

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board

2
04/11/2026
1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with
Crime No. 613/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines,
District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections
318(4), 61(2), 317(4) and 3(5) of BNS and Section 66(D) of the
Information Technology Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant came to
know about the advertisement related to stock trading and when
she clicked on the site, she was redirected to a whatsapp ground
containing 139 members. Thereafter, complainant joined the
Sarthi Plan to invest in stock trading through the application
FINSOL and the complainant, on her own will, invested a total
sum of Rs. 17,21,100/- via NEFT, IMPS and RTGS. When the
complainant asked for refund of the invested amount and when
no heed was paid, she lodged an FIR against co-accused
persons namely Sandeep Chandra, Mukesh Kumar Das and
Sourabh Rathore. The said co-accused persons were
apprehended and on the strength of their memorandum
statements, other co-accused persons namely Shishir Rathore,
Keshav Sao and Rajat Tomar were implicated in the case.
3. Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant,
would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been

3
implicated in the present case. The applicant never induced the
complainant to invest in stock trading and she, on her own will,
invested a total sum of Rs. 17,21,100/-. He would further contend
that police recovered a sum of Rs. 8,81,852/- from 450 bank
accounts and the said amount has already been refunded to her
and apart from that, complainant has been refunded a sum of
Rs. 3,90,000/- through supurdnama by the concerned trial Court
in MJC/872/2026. Moreover, the present applicant along with
three other co-accused persons have refunded Rs. 1,80,000/-
each to the complainant though bank drafts. He would lastly
submit that there are two previous criminal antecedents of the
applicant of similar nature but they have been registered in the
State of Telangana, charge-sheet has already been filed, the
applicant is in jail since 30/05/2026 and since conclusion of trial is
likely to take considerable time, the present applicant may be
released on bail.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Keshav Gupta, learned counsel appearing
for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application and
submit that the applicant along with other co-accused persons
cheated the complainant and grabbed a sum of Rs. 17,21,100/-. It
is also contended that there are two criminal antecedents of the
applicant of similar nature registered in the State of Telangana.
He would further contend that as there are serious allegations of
committing fraud against the present applicant and the co-

4
accused persons, therefore, this bail application is liable to be
rejected.
5. Mr. Wasim Miyan, learned counsel appearing for the
objector/complainant, would oppose the submission advanced by
learned counsel for the applicant. He would fairly endorse the
submission that complainant has already been refunded a sum of
Rs. 3,90,000/- through supurdnama by the concerned trial Court
and the present applicant along with three other co-accused
persons have already refunded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- each to
the complainant though bank drafts.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
7. Having considered the fact that charge-sheet has already been
filed, though there are two previous criminal antecedents of the
applicant of similar nature but they have been registered in the
State of Telangana, further considering that the present applicant
along with three co-accused persons have each refunded a sum
of Rs. 1,80,000/- to the complainant by bank drafts and the
complainant has further secured a refund of Rs. 3,90,000/- from
the concerned trial Court, further considering that the applicant is
in jail since 30/05/2026 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take
considerable time, without commenting on the merits of the
matter, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular
bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

5
8. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like
sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be
released on bail, on 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, and
(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.
9. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding
this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on
its own merits.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Harneet