Accused In ₹17.21 Lakh Online Trading-Fraud Case Gets Bail As Chhattisgarh HC Notes ₹1.8 Lakh Refund And ₹3.9 Lakh Secured By Complainant

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 317(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The complainant alleged that, after joining an investment plan through the FINSOL application, she transferred ₹17,21,100 and was unable to obtain a refund. The applicant was implicated following the arrest and memorandum statements of co-accused persons.

The applicant relied on refunds made to the complainant, the absence of criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 1 June 2026, and the likely length of the trial.

The State opposed bail; the complainant’s counsel acknowledged the refunds.

Section 483 of the BNSS empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.

The Court exercised that power by considering the circumstances relevant to the application, including completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, criminal antecedents, custody, the anticipated duration of trial, and the refunds made to the complainant.

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 317(4) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.

The order cites no precedent and makes no determination of the merits of those allegations.

The Court considered that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had no previous criminal antecedents, and he had been in custody since 1 June 2026.

It also took account of the ₹1,80,000 refund made by the applicant and three co-accused persons individually, the further ₹3,90,000 secured by the complainant through the trial court, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time.

On those combined circumstances, and without commenting on the merits, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail.

It directed that the applicant be released on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The applicant must not intimidate or influence persons acquainted with the case, must not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and must attend each trial date until disposal.

The trial court was directed to decide the case on its own merits.