LAKSHIT KUMAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010316482026 2026:CGHC:38308
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1419 of 2026
Lakshit Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar Aged About 22 Years R/o Mehendipur
Sonipat, Sonipat (Haryana)
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chakarbhata, District –
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Janu Khare, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General.
RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Digitally signed
by
RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
Order On Board
31.08.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application under
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant
of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No. 180/2026, registered at Police Station – Chakarbhata, District –
Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under
Section 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 338 and 3(5) of the BNS and
Section 66(D) of the IT Act.
2. As per the prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant/applicant,
Arvind Sinha, lodged a written complaint at Police Station
Chakrabhatha alleging that on 10.06.2024, one Grace David, stated to
be a resident of the United Kingdom, presented a Demand Draft of
Rs.103 Crores in his name at Union Bank of India, City Branch, Airport,
Delhi. The said Demand Draft was allegedly subjected to verification by

2
the Union Bank of India, Customs Department, Union Bank of India,
Karol Bagh, Delhi, the Enforcement Directorate, Delhi, and the
Reserve Bank of India, Delhi. It is further alleged that, for the purpose
of getting the aforesaid Demand Draft of Rs.103 Crores cleared, the
accused persons, namely, Naveen Kumar June, Pragya Srivastava and
their relatives and associates, using mobile number 8950235050,
created various fake e-mail IDs and represented to the complainant
that he was required to deposit an amount of Rs.3,13,13,850/-, failing
which the Demand Draft would be cancelled. Believing the aforesaid
representation to be genuine, the complainant, through his wife and
daughter, deposited a total amount of Rs.3,13,13,850/- in the accounts
communicated to him, maintained with the State Bank of India, High
Court Branch, and HDFC Bank, Bengaluru, and also made certain
payments through credit cards. Subsequently, when the complainant
was informed by a bank official that the Demand Draft had reached the
Bank of India, he contacted accused Naveen June. The accused
allegedly informed him that the aforesaid amount had been deposited
with the bank towards service charges.
3. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by the complainant, an
offence under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act was registered
against accused Naveen June and Pragya Srivastava. During the
course of investigation, on the basis of the statement of the
complainant and the documents produced by him, Sections 336(3),
338, 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were
subsequently added. During investigation, on the basis of the

3
memorandum statement of accused Naveen June, a laptop, tablet,
mobile phone, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and cheque book were seized
from his possession. Upon finding prima facie material showing his
involvement in the alleged offence of cheating committed pursuant to a
conspiracy, accused Naveen June was arrested on 03.04.2026. From
the perusal of the case diary, it is alleged that accused Naveen June, in
furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, induced the complainant Arvind
Sinha to deposit an amount of Rs.3,13,13,850/- for getting the Demand
Draft of Rs.103 Crores cleared. By allegedly creating fake e-mail IDs
and making false representations, the said amount was fraudulently
procured from the complainant and transferred/deposited into various
bank accounts belonging to the co-accused persons. Hence, this
application.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that two of the co-
accused persons, namely, Pragya Shrivastava, Ishika, Azad Singh and
Vishnu Sihora alias Vishal have been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court vide orders dated 07.05.2026 and 29.07.2026 passed in MCRCA
Nos. 687/2026 and 1161/2026. Hence, he prays for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail and submitted that so far as the anticipatory bail
granted to the co-accused, namely, Pragya Shrivastava is concerned,
she was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on the ground of being
a lady. It is contended that the applicant, in furtherance of a criminal
conspiracy with the co-accused persons, was involved in inducing the
complainant to deposit a huge amount of Rs.3,13,13,850/- on the false

4
pretext of getting a Demand Draft of Rs.103 Crores cleared. It is further
submitted that fake e-mail IDs were created and used for making false
representations to the complainant, pursuant to which the aforesaid
amount was transferred into various bank accounts of the co-accused
persons. Learned State counsel further submits that the investigation
has revealed the involvement of the applicant in the alleged conspiracy
and that the money trail is required to be investigated thoroughly. It is
argued that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for
ascertaining the role played by him, tracing the proceeds of the alleged
crime, identifying the other persons involved in the conspiracy and
collecting further evidence. Considering the nature and gravity of the
allegations, the huge amount allegedly obtained by fraudulent means
and the material collected during investigation, learned State counsel
submits that the applicant does not deserve the benefit of anticipatory
bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, allegations levelled
against the applicant in the FIR, it appears that so far as the
anticipatory bail granted to the co-accused, namely, Pragya
Shrivastava is concerned, she was granted anticipatory bail by this
Court on the ground of being a lady, moreover, the applicant was
involved in the alleged conspiracy whereby, on the pretext of getting a
Demand Draft of Rs.103 Crores cleared, the complainant was induced
to deposit a huge amount of Rs.3,13,13,850/-. It is further alleged that
fake e-mail IDs were created and used for making false

5
representations to the complainant, pursuant to which the aforesaid
amount was transferred into various bank accounts of the co-accused
persons. The investigation in respect of the money trail and the
respective roles of the persons involved is still required to be carried
out. At this stage, the possibility of the applicant's custodial
interrogation for ascertaining his precise role, tracing the proceeds of
the alleged crime and identifying the other persons involved in the
conspiracy cannot be ruled out. Considering the nature and gravity of
the allegations, the magnitude of the alleged financial fraud, the
amount involved and the material collected during investigation, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is not entitled for
grant of anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the applicant – Lakshit
Kumar , filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with
Crime No. 180/2026, registered at Police Station – Chakarbhata,
District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable
under Section 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 338 and 3(5) of the BNS
and Section 66(D) of the IT Act, is rejected .
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Rajshekhar