SNEHANSHU NAMDEV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010317462026 2026:CGHC:38330
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7669 of 2026
Digitally
signed by
PREETI
KUMARI
Date:
2026.09.01
12:45:14
+0530
PREETI
KUMARI
Snehanshu Namdev S/o Rakesh Namdev (Wrongly Mentioned As Rakesh
Nagmdev) Aged About 37 Years R/o Sai Vilas, Janjgiri, Police Station Kumhari,
District – Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Supela O.P. Smriti Nagar, Bhilai,
District – Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
31/08/2026
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.
1137/2025 registered at Police Station - Supela, District - Durg (C.G.) for
the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2), 61(2)
of BNS and Section 10 of C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant,

2
Vishwanath Lakhan Mathur, lodged a written complaint at Police Chowki
Smriti Nagar, Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.), stating that he is
a resident of Indore (M.P.). It is alleged that, upon receiving information
from his acquaintance, T. Vishnu, regarding companies namely Nisha
Business Consultancy and Unique Investment, operating at Surya T.I.
Mall, Bhilai, and offering monthly returns of 20% on investments in share
trading, the complainant came into contact with their agents, namely
Rajesh Verma, Ramesh Sahu and Snehanshu Namdeo. It is further
alleged that, being induced by the assurance of high returns, the
complainant initially invested a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20.05.2025 and
received a return of Rs. 36,000/-. Thereafter, on 26.07.2025, he further
invested a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- in two installments. Subsequently, the
complainant came to know that the aforesaid companies had closed their
offices and their representatives had absconded, thereby causing
financial loss to the complainant and cheating him. On the basis of the
aforesaid allegations, the present FIR was registered on 22.09.2025, and
thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court. Hence,
the present bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not
committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in
question. He further submits that identically situated co-accused persons
have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated
02.07.2026, 07.05.2026, 29.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 passed in MCRC
Nos. 5118/2026, 3408/2026, 6838/2026 and 6874/2026, respectivey. He
also submits that the applicant is in jail since 05.01.2026, the applicant
has two criminal antecedents of the year 2025 under the BNS, which are
pending against the applicant, further the charge-sheet has been filed and
the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays

3
for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He
further submits that the applicant allegedly was involved in the affairs of
Nisha Business Consultancy and Unique Investment Solution and, by
inducing the complainant and other investors with the promise of 20%
monthly returns on share-market investments, dishonestly obtained
money from them, including the complainant’s amount and thereafter the
company shut down its operations, causing financial loss to the investors,
but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been
granted bail by this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since
05.01.2026, the fact that though the applicant allegedly induced the
complainant and other investors with a promise of 20% monthly returns,
dishonestly obtained their money, including complainant, and thereafter
shut down the company, causing financial loss, but considering the fact
that identically situated co-accused persons have already been granted
bail by this Court vide orders dated 02.07.2026, 07.05.2026, 29.07.2026
and 03.08.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 5118/2026, 3408/2026,
6838/2026 and 6874/2026, respectively, the present applicant also has
two criminal antecedents, which are of the year 2025 under the BNS and
the same are pending, the charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the
view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
7.

4
8. Let the Applicant- Snehanshu Namdev, involved in Crime No.
1137/2025 registered at Police Station - Supela, District - Durg (C.G.) for
the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2), 61(2)
of BNS and Section 10 of C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act, be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in
the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with 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 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.

5
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for
necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Preeti