Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 05 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant Yogesh Kumar Sahu (son of Rajendra Kumar Sahu), residing at Durg, Chhattisgarh; Respondent State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Supela District, Durg; Complainant Raju Namdev.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), 2023, seeking regular bail for alleged offences under Sections 318(2), 318(4) & 61(2) of BNS.
  • Crime Details: Crime No. 961/2026 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg. The FIR dated 08‑07‑2026 alleges that the applicant operated a share‑trading business named Arena Capital during FY 2025‑2026, enticing investors with promises of 100% enhancement of their investments and a monthly return of 10%.
  • Alleged Misappropriation: The FIR states the applicant collected Rs 15 lakhs from complainant Raju Namdev and, according to the State’s counsel, a total of Rs 3,74,00,000 (Rs 3.74 crore) from various investors.
  • Procedural History: The applicant was arrested on 09‑07‑2026, charge‑sheet filed, and has been in custody since. Four accused persons are involved; three co‑accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench, with one co‑accused being a lady.
  • Criminal Antecedents: The applicant has six live criminal antecedents and, as per the complainant’s counsel, eleven criminal antecedents registered across the country.
  • Counsel Positions:
  • Applicant’s counsel (Mr. Sanjay Agrawal) argued that similar bail was granted to co‑accused and that the applicant’s antecedents have previously resulted in anticipatory bail.
  • State counsel (Mr. Keshav Gupta) emphasized the large embezzled amount and multiple live cases, urging rejection.
  • Objector counsel (Mr. Ankush Soni) highlighted the 11 nationwide antecedents, supporting denial.
  • Court’s Observations: The bench outlined three objectives of examining antecedents during bail: (i) likelihood of compliance, (ii) pattern of similar offences, (iii) risk of tampering or intimidation. It noted the distinct allegation against the applicant for directly collecting and embezzling Rs 3.74 crore, differentiating his case from co‑accused who were merely collection agents.

Final Outcome

  • The Court concluded that the applicant’s case is distinguishable from that of the co‑accused and that the presence of six live criminal antecedents indicates a risk of repetition. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

Topics: Legal; Financial Fraud