Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRC/8309/2026 of Anand Chandel Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 7 September 2026
2026:CGHC:39397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8309 of 2026 Anand Chandel S/o Rampal Chandel, Aged About 54 Years R/o Plot Number C- 102, Octra Rest C H S, Lokhandwala Township, Kandivali (East), District : Mumbai, Maharashtra ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of
CGHC010339542026
2026:CGHC:39397
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8309 of 2026
Anand Chandel S/o Rampal Chandel, Aged About 54 Years R/o Plot Number C- 102, Octra Rest C H S, Lokhandwala Township, Kandivali (East), District :
Mumbai, Maharashtra
... Petitioner(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P S Pakhanjur, Kanker, District- Kanker, Chhattisghrh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant
:
Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate
For State
:
Mr. Amit Buxi, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
08/09/2026
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 filed this bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 84 of 2025 registered at Police Station –Pakhanjur, District- Kanker (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340(2), 61 (2), 3 (5) of BNS.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.05.2025 complainant lodged report in the concerned police station stating that when he was residing in America, he received a phone call from the applicant in which he was informed that there is one Zealapp View Pvt. Ltd. at Mumbai in which he will be appointed as Chief Technical Officer and will be provided 10% share and was given a bank account number for transfer of Rs.1 crores. Pursuant thereto, complainant has transferred Rs.43,44,900/- in the bank account number which was given by applicant. When complainant came to know about the fraud committed with him, he lodged report and applicant was arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the crime. There was no undue coercion or influence exercised upon the complainant and he willingly invested the amount after he made up his mind. However, owing to unforeseen circumstances and adverse market conditions, the startup could not succeed and, despite repeated efforts, applicant could not revive the business. Applicant is in jail since 15.05.2026, charge sheet has been filed, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the applicant is directly involved in the commission of the alleged offence. It is contended that, as per the prosecution case, the applicant had a conversation with the complainant wherein he induced him by representing that he would be given 10% share in the company and will be appointed as Chief Technical Officer, pursuant to which, the complainant transferred a substantial amount of money into the bank account of the applicant. He also submits that applicant is resident of Mumbai. No document is shown about the startup.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegation, specific role alleged to be played by applicant, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow the application.
7. The application is accordingly rejected.
Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge Praveen