[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Priyank Jitendra Kumar Brahmbhatt vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15384
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2989 of 2026
Priyank Jitendra Kumar Brahmbhatt S/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Jeevanlal
Brahmbhatt Aged About 33 Years R/o Barotvas Jangral Patan Gujarat,
Present Address E-101 Anand Eye Life Near Vaishnav Devi Under Pass
Judal District Patan Gujarat.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -
Gudhiyari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.04.2026
1.
This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the
BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 268/2025, registered at
Police Station- Gudhiyari, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023.
2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No.
RAHUL
DEWANGAN 6856/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2025
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
on merits.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, while
searching for a mobile phone on 25.02.2025, came across an
advertisement on Google pertaining to BN Rathi Securities, which
promised lucrative returns on investment. Upon clicking the said
advertisement, the complainant was redirected to the company's
website and was subsequently added to a WhatsApp group, where
he was provided with links and induced by the company's
representatives, who contacted him through different phone
numbers, to invest money. Falling prey to the said inducement, the
complainant invested amounts as instructed during the period from
12.03.2025 to 30.04.2025 and was allegedly cheated of
approximately Rs.2,65,90,000/- by depositing the said amounts into
various bank accounts. On the basis of the written complaint, a
prima facie offence under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was found to have been committed within the
jurisdiction of Raipur, and accordingly, a case was registered at
Police Station Gudhiyari and taken up for investigation. During the
course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused persons
used multiple bank accounts, including IndusInd Bank Account No.
201032463052 (in the name of Kavya Enterprises with KYC details
of Nagendra Kumar) and IDFC Bank Account No. 10079924518 (in
the name of Good Dream with KYC details of Sheikh Suraj Baba),
as well as IDFC Bank Account No. 10202008869 (in the name of
Shivank Infinity IT Solutions with KYC details of Priyank Jitendra
Kumar Brahmbhatt), for commission of the offence. The
complainant was induced to deposit amounts including
Rs.7,00,000/- on 17.03.2025, Rs.15,00,000/- on 22.04.2025,
Rs.10,00,000/- on 24.04.2025, Rs.10,00,000/- on 03.04.2025, and
Rs.20,00,000/- on 05.05.2025 into the said accounts. The
concerned banks furnished the KYC documents, including Aadhaar
and PAN details of the account holders, and during investigation,
sufficient material was collected indicating the involvement of the
said accused persons, who were thereafter lawfully arrested.
Hence, the present bail application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present is the
second bail application, as the earlier bail application of the
applicant, being MCRC No. 6856/2025, was rejected by this
Hon'ble Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 on merits. Thereafter,
the applicant preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 331/2026
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 16.02.2026, a copy of which is filed
herewith as Annexure A/4. It is further submitted that the bail
application of a co-accused, namely Nagendra Kumar, in MCRC
No. 8284/2025 was also rejected by this Hon'ble Court vide order
dated 15.10.2025, however, the said co-accused preferred Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3611/2026, which was allowed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.03.2026. He also
submits that the applicant is in jail since 10.06.2025 and has,
therefore, undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly
nine months and charges have not yet been framed. Therefore, on
the ground of parity, the present applicant is also entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail
application of the present applicant and submits that charge-sheet
has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the
fact that co-accused person has already been granted bail by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and the case of the present applicant is
identical to that of the co-accused. She further submits that the
present is a second bail application, which was earlier rejected on
merits by this Hon'ble Court, and thereafter the Special Leave to
Appeal preferred by the applicant was also dismissed as withdrawn
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and therefore, no new or substantial
change in circumstances has been shown to warrant grant of bail. It
is further submitted that the applicant is involved in a serious and
well-organized financial fraud wherein the complainant was induced
through online platforms, including Google advertisement and
WhatsApp groups, to invest huge amounts on the false promise of
high returns, and was thereby cheated of approximately Rs. 2.65
crores by transferring money into multiple bank accounts operated
by the accused persons. Learned State Counsel contends that the
investigation has revealed active involvement of the applicant in the
said fraudulent transactions through bank accounts backed by KYC
documents, and considering the gravity of the offence, the
magnitude of the amount involved, and the manner in which the
fraud has been executed, the applicant is not entitled to be released
on bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of
allegations, and the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties, this Court notes that the earlier bail application of the
applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated
08.10.2025 and the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 331/2026
preferred thereafter was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 16.02.2026. However, it is also evident that the
co-accused, namely Nagendra Kumar, whose bail application was
similarly rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 8284/2025 vide order
dated 15.10.2025, was subsequently granted relief by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3611/2026
vide order dated 09.03.2026. Further the fact that the applicant is in
jail since 10.06.2025 and has, therefore, undergone a substantial
period of incarceration of nearly nine months and charges have not
yet been framed. In view of the aforesaid development and
considering the principle of parity, coupled with the fact that the trial
is likely to take considerable time and without commenting on the
merits of the case, the present applicant also deserves to be
released on bail.
8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the Applicant - Priyank Jitendra Kumar Brahmbhatt,
involved in Crime No. 268/2025, registered at Police Station-
Gudhiyari, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, be
released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 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 her 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.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Rahul Dewangan
