Preetam Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 56/2025 registered at Police Station – Bhatgaon District - Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the BNSS and Section 66(D) and Section 74 of the IT Act, 2000.

As per prosecution story in short is that, the complainant namely Anil Kumar made complaint at Bhatgaon Police Station stating that, in month of January 2025 he met with Mohd. Javed Akhtar (co-accused) and present applicant. They co-accused and present applicant introduced them as investor in Crypto Currency. Thereafter, they have persuaded complainant to invest some money in crypto market to avail appropriate return and then the complainant has invested sum of Rs 7,75,000/- (Seven Lakh Seventy Five Thousands Rupees Only). For investing aforesaid amount the complainant has transferred 4,35,000/- through phonepe in account of present applicant and and remaining amount in account of co-accused Mohd. Javed Akhtar.

The applicant has not committed any offence nor participated in the commission of the alleged crime. The investigating authorities have failed to collect any concrete evidence against the applicant, and several discrepancies exist in the investigation. Notably, while the FIR alleges that the applicant along with co-accused Mohd. Javed Akhtar defrauded the complainant of ₹7,75,000/-, the complainant’s police statement during investigation mentions only ₹5,75,000/-, highlighting inconsistencies in the case. Furthermore, the complainant, a government school teacher, voluntarily initiated a crypto trading account through the Binance app on his own mobile device, which requires personal verification including Aadhaar details, OTP confirmation, and a live selfie, thereby indicating informed consent. His investment in ZFT crypto coins was a result of his own decision despite the well-known risks associated with cryptocurrency markets, such as volatility and trading risks. The story presented by the complainant to the police is incomplete and omits his role and consent in the entire process. The FIR appears to have been registered without proper investigation, and the applicant, who has been in custody since April 2025, is being wrongly prosecuted, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court.

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

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.04.2025, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case.

Let the Applicant – Preetam Kumar, involved in Crime No. 56/2025 registered at Police Station – Bhatgaon District - Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the BNSS and Section 66(D) and Section 74 of the IT Act, 2000, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.