Accused In Alleged ₹17.21 Lakh Stock-Trading Fraud Gets Bail As Chhattisgarh HC Notes Partial Refunds And No Prior Criminal Record

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after being arrested in connection with a case alleging offences 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.

The complainant alleged that she invested ₹17,21,100 in a stock-trading scheme through the FINSOL application after joining a WhatsApp group; after she sought a refund, co-accused persons were arrested and, on the basis of their memorandum statements, the applicant and others were implicated.

The applicant relied on amounts recovered or refunded to the complainant, the absence of prior criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, and his custody since 29 May 2026.

The State opposed bail, while the complainant’s counsel acknowledged the refunds described by the applicant.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

The Court assessed the application by reference to the circumstances identified in its order, including completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, custody, refunds made to the complainant, and the likely time required to conclude the trial.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents, and he had been in custody since 29 May 2026.

It also took account of the refunds: the applicant and three co-accused had each paid ₹1,80,000 by bank draft, and the complainant had received a further ₹3,90,000 through supurdnama.

Given these circumstances and the likelihood of delay before trial concluded, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail without expressing any view on the merits.

It imposed conditions against witness inducement or interference with a fair and expeditious trial, and required attendance at each trial-court date.

The applicant was directed to be released on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, subject to the stated conditions.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and that the trial court must decide the case on its own merits.