VIKRAM SINGH SHAH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010417692026 2026:CGHC:45569
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1766 of 2026
Vikram Singh Shah S/o Late Harbhajan Singh, Aged About 36 Years R/o. Sai
Dreem City, Amlidih, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) (As Per Correct
Details)
ALFIZA
BAIG
... Applicant
Digitally signed
by ALFIZA BAIG
Date: 2026.10.29
14:21:48 +0530
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -City
Kotwali, District Dhamtari (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate appears along with
Mr. Aishwary Diwan, Advocate and Mr. Avinash
Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. H.A.P.S Bhatia, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
28.10.2026
1. Applicant has preferred this second bail application under Section 482
of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail
as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 214/2026
registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Dhamtari (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. First bail
application of the present applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 12.10.2026 in MCRCA No. 1692 of 2026.

2
2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Shiv Kumar Sahu
lodged a written complaint against the present applicant stating that the
applicant took a total sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakhs) in
parts, some in cash and remaining through RTGS by luring him to invest
his money in share market and trading apps promising him that he will
pay 4% interest per month to him. Based upon which agreement for the
next two years was prepared and cheque in favor of complainant was
signed. Complainant received the interest for next six months. However,
after six months applicant stated that his account has been freezed. In a
meeting held by all the investors, applicant promised them that he will
return the money taken within two months,however, till now he has not
returned the said amount nor he is picking up anyone’s call. On the
basis of the aforementioned crime, FIR was lodged against the
applicant on 06.09.2026.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the crime. He has not committed any offence
as alleged. He further submits that applicant has accepted the money
from various investors for investing it in share market. The amount has
been paid by complainant through Kailash Sinha and some amount has
been returned back to complainant through Chetan Kumar. Kailash
Sinha and present applicant are relatives. He further submits that
approximately two crore rupees have been returned back till now.
Applicant has also enclosed the documents showing investment in the
share market vide Annexure A-5. He lastly submits that there is delay of
about 02 years in lodging of the FIR. Hence, applicant may be granted
the benefit of anticipatory bail.

3
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of
counsel for applicant and would submit that according to the FIR made
by complainant he has invested a sum of Rs. 25 Lakhs. When the
complainant has asked for the same to return back, he asked for two
months but till now has not returned. He submits that it is appearing
from the FIR that the complainant has transferred some amount through
RTGS in the account of applicant on 18.04.2024. When the complainant
asked for the same to return back, applicant has provided a cheque
bearing no. 347764 of an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- mentioning the
date of about 02 years. As per allegation applicant use to pay a sum of
Rs. 48,000/- per month which he paid of only six to seven months and
thereafter stopped. He also submits that applicant has collected the
amount from seven to eight persons which amounted to Rs. 3.12 Cr.,
approximately.
5. When the question was put to learned counsel for the applicant about
the handling over the cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/-, he submits that
according to the instructions statement made by complainant FIR used
to be correct but was towards the security.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
7. With regard to the delay in lodging of complaint, it is observed that in
such cases the report is lodged only when the complainant have
exhausted the relief of making request from the person who has
procured the amount fraudulently.
8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of allegation, submission made by learned counsel for the parties
and also looking to the manner in which the amount procured by the

4
applicant to invest in share market and further the said amount has not
been paid when the demand is made, I do not find present case fit to be
allowed, accordingly it is dismissed.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned
Court for necessary information.
Certified copy as per rules.
SD/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Alfiza JUDGE