The court determined that online fraud constitutes a serious offense warranting denial of bail, reflecting on evidentiary insufficiency for the applicant's defense.

Order on Board

11.06.2025

1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 67/2024 registered at Police Station – Parpodi, District – Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainants, Mani Kumar Devangan lodged a complaint against unknown persons. The allegations are that the unknown individual induced the complainants through mobile phone calls, promising higher profits in the name of purchasing and selling shares and trading at discounted princes. The complainants were deceived into transferring a total of Rs. 33,00,000/- to different accounts online. The complainants traded from April 9, 2024 to April 29, 2024. A profit amount was shown in their trading account. On April 29, 2024, after buying shares, an order was placed to purchase shares worth Rs. 8 lakhs. However, instead of allotting shares worth Rs. 8 lakhs, shares worth Rs. 20 lakhs were allotted. The complainants were then asked to deposit Rs. 12,50,000/- to execute the order. Fearing fines and legal action from SEBI, the complainants deposited the amount. The trade was executed, any by May 2, 2024, there was Rs. 33,00,000/- in the trading account. Although the complainants did not place any further orders, shares worth of Rs. 65 lakhs were allotted. When queried, they were threatened with penalties and legal action by SEBI unless they deposited Rs. 32,00,000/-. After selling other shares, Rs. 13,40,000/-was left in the account. The complainants attempted to withdraw the amount but were unable to do so. The account balance subsequently showed zero, leading the complainants to suspect they were being cheated. Complainant Mani Kumar Dewangan had previously withdrawn Rs. 1,000/- from the app on April 16, 2024, which was deposited into his account (No. 31710063871). Conversations with the fraudsters took place on mobile numbers 9935286856, 8869047564, 8093881043 and 7205906708. The complainants transferred Rs. 33,00,000/- to different accounts. Hence, this application.

3. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2024 passed in MCRC No.

8301/2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that if the whole prosecution story is accepted no offence is made out under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act because nothing has been seized from the present applicant and no amount was received from the present applicant account and the prosecution has no evidence to show that the present applicant called the complainant to deposit a money in a different account even that the mobile number which was written in the charge-sheet is not of the present applicant. He further submits that the entire prosecution story shows that the complainants has invested the money in share market and when the complainant suffer loss of money, therefore, he lodged the FIR against the unknown persons. He also submits that the present applicant is in jail since 31.08.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is of the nature of online fraud, by which the complainants suffered of huge amount, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. Thus, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

7. Considering the facts a