SUBARNO GHOSAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010342002026 2026:CGHC:39069
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8201 of 2026
Subarno Ghosal S/o Bikash Chandra Ghosal Aged About 27 Years
(Wrongly Mentioned In Cause Title Of Impugned Order As Vikas
Ghoshal), R/o Shanti Kunj Brij Vihar, Near Ratlam Bagh, Raj Kishore
Nagar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Chirmiri,
District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh.
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
03.09.2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for
grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 175/2026 registered at Police Station -
Chirmiri, District - M.C.B., (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (for short ‘BNS’)
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
2. As per the prosecution case in brief is that the complainant, namely
Anwar Mohammad, lodged the First Information Report dated

2
23.04.2026, alleging that in early 2025, he met one Debrath Saha,
who informed him that the present applicant was engaged in the
business of tours and travels and was also involved in
cryptocurrency trading and that he offered a minimum monthly
return of 10% on every investment. Debrath Saha further informed
the complainant that he himself had invested a certain amount with
the applicant. Influenced by the said representation, the
complainant met the applicant, who allegedly represented that he
owned properties worth Rs. 8 to 10 crores and that his father and
friends were also involved in the said business, besides claiming
that several other persons had invested their money with him.
Relying upon the assurances given by the applicant, the
complainant transferred a total amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- in two
instalments of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- on different dates
from his Central Bank of India account, Chirmiri, bearing Account
No. 3785077365, to the HDFC Bank account of the applicant
bearing Account No. 50200045955671. It is further alleged that
another person, namely Tapas Banerjee, was also induced by
similar assurances and invested a sum of Rs. 28,00,000/- with the
applicant, against which the applicant paid returns/profits for a few
months; however, subsequently, he failed to pay the promised
returns or refund the invested amount. Despite repeated meetings
and requests, the applicant allegedly continued to give false
assurances, pursuant to which the complainant came to know that
he had been defrauded by the applicant. A copy of the FIR dated
23.04.2026 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-2. Thereafter,

3
the police commenced investigation, during which the statements of
the complainant and other witnesses were recorded and the bank
account details of the applicant, complainant and other investors
were collected and analyzed. The applicant was also served with a
notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023; however, as he allegedly failed to cooperate with the
investigation, he was arrested on 18.06.2026 and produced before
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who remanded him to
judicial custody, and since then, he has been in custody. Upon
completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet
before the competent Court on 13.08.2026. Hence, the present bail
application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and
that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients
of the alleged offences against him. It is further submitted that the
learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the material
available on record and has rejected the bail application on
considerations which are not sustainable in law. It is further
contended that, as is evident from the FIR itself, the applicant had
initially paid interest/returns on the amount allegedly invested, which
indicates absence of any dishonest intention from the inception.
According to the applicant, the amount received from the
complainant was, in fact, a loan taken for his tours and travels
business and no assurance regarding payment of 10% monthly
returns was ever given by him. The applicant had been repaying the

4
said loan amount in installments, but owing to unforeseen financial
difficulties and losses in his business, he could not repay the
remaining amount, resulting in the present false complaint. He also
submits that the aforesaid defence also finds support from the
statement of Tapas Banerjee recorded during investigation, a copy
whereof has been filed as ANNEXURE A-4 . It is further submitted
that the applicant was running a tours and travels business under
the name and style of Subarno Logistics, which suffered substantial
losses, due to which the applicant faced financial difficulties and
was unable to repay the loan amounts. It is also submitted that
similar criminal proceedings have been initiated against the
applicant at Sarkanda Police Station and that his vehicles were
allegedly seized by certain persons and the bank, pursuant to such
disputes and criminal proceedings. He further submits that the
applicant is only 27 years of age and has been in jail since
18.06.2026 and has already undergone about 75 days of
incarceration, prolonged incarceration would adversely affect his
future and livelihood, particularly when he is the only son of his aged
parents and is required to look after and support them, the
investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has already
been filed before the competent Court on 13.08.2026, and
therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is
required. Hence, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the
respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the
charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the

5
competent Court. She further submits that the allegations against
the applicant are serious in nature, as he allegedly induced the
complainant and other investors to invest substantial amounts by
promising a monthly return of 10% and thereafter failed to repay the
invested amounts. It is further submitted that the applicant failed to
cooperate with the investigation despite notice under Section 35 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and was
consequently arrested. She also submits that the statements of the
complainant and other witnesses, coupled with the bank
transactions and other material collected during investigation, prima
facie support the prosecution case. She further submits that the
applicant has one more previous criminal antecedent which is
pending. On these grounds, she prays for rejection of the bail
application.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the
nature of allegations and the material available on record, and it is
also relevant to take note of the fact that, as reflected from the FIR
itself, the applicant had initially paid returns/profits on the amount
received for some period, while the applicant has taken a specific
defence that the amount was received as a loan for his tours and
travels business and that he had been repaying the same in
installments, but subsequently faced financial difficulties and

6
business losses. The said defence is also sought to be supported
by the statement of Tapas Banerjee recorded during investigation.
Further the fact that the applicant has been in jail since 18.06.2026
and has already undergone about 75 days of incarceration, the
investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed
before the competent Court on 13.08.2026, therefore, no further
custodial interrogation of the applicant appears to be necessary.
Further, the applicant is a young person aged about 27 years and
has stated that he is the only son of his aged parents, who are
dependent upon his care and support. Without commenting upon
the merits of the case, and having regard to the fact that the trial is
likely to take some time, this Court is of the considered view that the
present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this
case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed .
8. Let the Applicant - Subarno Ghosal, involved in Crime No.
175/2026 registered at Police Station - Chirmiri, District - M.C.B.,
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and one surety, subject to
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

7
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 sufficient
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
statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the
opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is
deliberate or without sufficient 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.
9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Rahul Dewangan