Chhattisgarh HC Bails Alleged ₹17.21 Lakh Online-Trading Fraud Accused, Citing ₹1.8 Lakh Repayment And Trial Delay

The complainant alleged that, after responding to a stock-trading advertisement and joining a WhatsApp group, she invested ₹17,21,100 through the FINSOL application.

Following her complaint, several co-accused were arrested, and the applicant was implicated on the basis of their memorandum statements.

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.

The applicant submitted that the complainant had received refunds, that he had no criminal antecedents, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that he had been in custody since 29 May 2026.

The State and complainant opposed bail; the complainant’s counsel acknowledged the refunds described by the applicant.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was the statutory basis for the application for regular bail.

The alleged offences were 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 Court cited no precedent or further legal test; it assessed the bail request in light of the case circumstances, including the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of prior criminal antecedents, refunds made to the complainant, the period of custody, and the likely time required to conclude the trial.

The Court considered that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had no previous criminal antecedents, and the applicant and three co-accused had each refunded ₹1,80,000 by bank drafts; it also noted the complainant’s receipt of ₹3,90,000 through supurdnama from the trial court.

The applicant had been in custody since 29 May 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

On these circumstances, and without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court found it appropriate to grant regular 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.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the case; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; and requiring attendance on every date fixed by the trial court until disposal of the trial.

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.