SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 2830

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHAHJAHAN KHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
MCRC/147/2026



##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5599

Digitally

signed by NAFR

VAISHALI

VAISHALI LUCKY

LUCKY NAGARIA

NAGARIA Date:

2026.02.02

16:35:50 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

+0530

MCRC No. 147 of 2026

• Shahjahan Khan S/o Late Maksed Khan Aged About 49 Years R/o

Jagdevpur, Post D K Nagar, Harindaga, Thana Daimond Harbor,

District - South 24 Pargana, West Bengal

... Applicant

versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station - Kotwali

Sarangarh, District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) Now.

... Respondent

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

31.01.2026

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of

regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.

124/2018, registered at Police Station – Kotwali Sarangarh, District –

Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections

403, 405, 415, 418, 420, 424, 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short

‘IPC’) and Section 6, 10 of CPDI Act, and Section 3,4, 5 of Prime Chit

Fund and Money Circulation Act, 1987.

2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant Hazari Ram was

##PAGE2##

2

lured by the co-accused Jeetram Bhardwaj and Mahadeva Soni at his

home to invest in Kolkata Ware Industries Limited, promising him

good returns by promising to deposit Rs. 5 lakh, and to receive Rs.

10,000 in the form of shares and Rs. 6 lakh on July 5, 2012. On July

5, 2012, the complainant deposited Rs. 5 lakh with the branch

manager, Mahadeva Soni, at Garh Chowk Kesharwani Bhawan,

Sarangarh. He received Rs. 10,000 each in shares for 20 months. In

August 2013, the complainant again deposited Rs. 5 lakh at the

Dabhra branch of the company, receiving Rs. 10,000 each for six

months. Subsequently, the shares ceased to be distributed in March

2014, and the accused absconded. Following the complainant's

complaint to the police station, the Securities and Exchange Board of

India (SEBI), Kolkata, conducted an investigation and determined the

company to be a fraudulent company. Following the investigation, a

First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the co-accused

Jeetram Bharti and Mahadeva Soni at the Sarangarh police station.

Crime No. 124/2018, Sections 403, 405, 415, 418, 420, 424, 34 IPC

and Sections 6, 10 of C.G.P.D.I. Act and under sections 3, 4, 5 of the

Prime Chitfund and Money Circulation Act, 1987, the present

accused Shahjahan Khan has been arrested on dated 05.12.2025

and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Hence, this bail

application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is

contended that the applicant has neither induced nor cheated the

complainant and has not received any amount from him in the name

of investment. It is further submitted that the applicant is not a

director of Kolkata Ware Industries Limited and no documentary

##PAGE3##

3

evidence has been seized by the prosecution to establish his

involvement in the alleged offence. The implication of the applicant is

based solely on the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which

by itself has limited evidentiary value. Learned counsel further points

out that as per the FIR, the complainant last paid money in August

2013, and even after the alleged stoppage of share distribution in

March 2014, no complaint was lodged for a considerable period. It is

also submitted that the complainant did not name the present

applicant in the FIR. It is argued that the applicant has been in

judicial custody since 05.12.2025, the investigation is substantially

complete, and the trial is likely to take a long time for its conclusion.

On these grounds, bail has been prayed for.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes the bail

application and submits that the offence is serious in nature and

involves financi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top