1] They are heard. Perused the case-diary.

2] This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.134/2025 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, District Indore for the offence punishable under Section 316(5), 318(4), 3(5) of the BNS Act.

3] The allegation against the applicant is of fraud to the tune of Rs.1.34,00,000/-, on the pretext of investment in the cryptocurrency, as it is alleged that the complainant entered into an agreement with the company of the co-accused/NomexTechnologies Pvt. Ltd., in which the applicant was one of the Director/CFO. It is alleged that the company has not paid the amount to the complainant, as per the agreement, which led to the filing of the FIR.

4] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the other two co- accused persons, viz, Abhishek and Anurag, have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC.No.37239/2025 vide order dated 4.9.2025, and the case of the applicant is on better footing, as he was not directly involved in the case. It is also submitted that otherwise also the investement of the amount invested by the complainant was secured by allotement of the requisite amount of token as on the date of agreement; however, the present market value of the allotted token is Rupees Fifty-three Lakhs only on account of the fall in the crypto currency market, and if the complainant desires to withdraw, the same it can also be arranged.

5] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is not a case where the transaction took place with any fraudulent intention on the part of the applicant and thus, it is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary, and the anticipatory bail application be allowed.

6] Counsel for the respondent/State, as also the objector, have opposed the prayer.

7] Counsel for the objector has submitted that the amount has not been paid to the complainant, as agreed in the agreement, and the complainant does not agree to recieving the present value of his investment in cryptocurrency.

8] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the case diary, as also the order dated 4.9.2025 passed by this Court in the co-accused persons Abhishek and Anurag, and taking note of the assertion made by the counsel for the applicant regarding payment of present value of the investment of the complainant, this Court finds that it is not a case where fraud can be inferred from the act of the applicant.

9] In view of the above, this Court is inclined allow the present application as the custodial interrogation of the applicant under the facts and circumstances of the case does not appear to be necessary.

10] Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) and furnishing one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer). The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

11] However, it is directed that if the applicant is found to be involved in violation of any of the terms of this order, an application for cancellation of his bail may be filed before the trial Court itself, which shall decide the same in accordance with law.

12] Accordingly, MCRC stands allowed.