Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRCA/1568/2026 of JATIN DAS Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 4 October 2026
2026:CGHC:43038 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1568 of 2026 • Jatin Das S/o Pradip Das Aged About 30 Years R/o Navaparadala, Near Bypass, Jajpur Road, P.S. Jajpur, District Jajpur, Odisha ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station
CGHC010371872026
2026:CGHC:43038
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA
No.
of 2026
•
Jatin Das S/o Pradip Das Aged About 30 Years R/o Navaparadala, Near Bypass, Jajpur Road, P.S. Jajpur, District Jajpur, Odisha
... Applicant
versus
•
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station In-Charge, Police Station - Sarswati Nagar, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicant
:
Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate
For Respondent-State
:
Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
05/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 218/2025 registered at Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Dakeshwar Singh lodged a report in the concerned police station stating that by some unknown person a friend request on Facebook was sent to him and he was invited to add to a WhatsApp group in which citing some benefits of online trading, made him to download some mobile application on his phone and from 01.06.2025 to 11.09.2025 an amount of Rs. 71,50,000 was deposited from different users including complainant was defrauded. Based on the report, aforementioned crime was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the allegation levelled against applicant is false and baseless. He has been falsely implicated in the crime, in fact bank account of applicant has been used by the other co-accused persons and within a period of one months Rs. 10 Lakh has been deposited in the account, applicant is also a victim.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of counsel for applicant and submits that applicant along with other co- accused persons has involved in commission of alleged crime of online trading and cheated other persons. He submits that according to the investigation, huge amount of Rs. 10 Lakh has been deposited in the account of applicant but the bank statement of the said account is still awaited. He also submits that the regular bail application preferred by co- accused person namely Jayaram Vajendla in MCRC No. 1855/2026 came to be rejected vide order dated 25.03.2026 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and subsequently bail application of two other co-accused namely Rohit Baban Kaulge and Sumit Shrinivas Rathi also came to be dismissed in MCRC No. 4420/2026 and MCRC No. 4823/2026 vide order dated 09.07.2026.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with bail application.
6. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties and further considering the the regular bail application of three co-accused persons have already been rejected, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow this anticipatory bail application.
7. Accordingly, application is rejected.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn
JUDGE