SHISHIR RATHORE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1
HARNEET
KAUR
Digitally signed by
HARNEET KAUR
Date: 2026.11.05
11:21:46 +0530

CGHC010359062026 2026:CGHC:46733
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8685 of 2026
1 - Shishir Rathore Son Of Tej Lal Rathore, Aged About 35 Years
Resident Of Sigansara P.S. Shakti District Shakti (C.G.) At Present
Residing At Rajwada City Police Station - Mova, Raipur District Raipur
(C.G.)
--- Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of
Police Station - Civil Lines, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
--- Non-applicant

For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, 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
04/11/2026
1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for

2
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, the present applicant namely Shishir Rathore and
other co-accused persons namely Keshav Sao and Rajat Tomar
were implicated in the case.
3. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the applicant,
would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The applicant never induced the
complainant to invest in stock trading and she, on her own will,

3
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 no previous criminal antecedents of the
applicant, charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in
jail since 29/05/2026 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/-.
He would further contend that as there are serious allegations of
committing fraud against the present applicant and the co-
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

4
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, there are no previous criminal antecedents of the applicant,
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 29/05/2026 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 .
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,

5
(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