01Facts
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR alleging an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that he had invested ₹25 lakh with the applicant on the promise of monthly returns from share-market trading; after receiving returns for six months, the applicant allegedly stopped payment and failed to return the principal.
pp. 1–2The applicant claimed that he had invested funds in the share market, that some money had been repaid, and that approximately ₹2 crore had been returned to investors; he also relied on an alleged delay of about two years in lodging the FIR. His first anticipatory-bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn.
pp. 1–202Issues
i.1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in the circumstances of the alleged investment and non-repayment of funds
pp. 1–2 · p. 4ii.2. Whether the delay in lodging the complaint warranted granting anticipatory bail
pp. 3–403Law Applied
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the procedural basis for seeking anticipatory bail.
p. 1The alleged offence was under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court applied no cited precedent or separately stated legal test; it assessed the application by reference to the facts and circumstances, the nature of the allegations, and the manner in which the money was obtained and remained unpaid.
p. 1 · p. 4Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420
04Reasoning
The Court considered the allegations that the applicant had obtained money from the complainant and other investors for share-market investment, paid monthly amounts for only six to seven months, and did not return the funds when asked.
pp. 2–3The applicant’s explanation that the cheque for ₹10 lakh was provided only as security, together with his claims of investment and partial repayment, did not persuade the Court to grant relief. As to delay, the Court observed that in such cases a complaint may be lodged after the complainant has exhausted efforts to recover the money directly from the person who procured it.
p. 305Holding
The Court held that the case was not fit for anticipatory bail, taking into account the nature of the allegations and the alleged failure to repay the money obtained for investment.
p. 4The second anticipatory-bail application was dismissed, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned court.
p. 4Original Court PDF
VIKRAM SINGH SHAHvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
