1 2025:CGHC:33442 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4530 of 2025 Abhishek Dahiya S/o Jagannath Dahiya Aged About 22 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Housing Board Colony, Mahrajpur, Police Station Adhartal, District Jabalpur (M.P.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.07.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 08/2025, registered at Police Station Parpodi, District – Bemetara (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that the present applicant, along with the co-accused, committed online fraud with the complainant. They called her on WhatsApp, claiming to be police officers, and informed her that some illegal article had been deported in her name, for which an FIR ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.18 12:16:48 +0530 2 had been registered against her at Police Station Khamtarai. They showed her a video clip of the police station and told her that if she wanted the FIR to be quashed, she would have to pay a certain amount. Out of fear, the complainant sent a total amount of Rs. 9,11,999/- through UPI transactions to different UPI accounts. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint at the concerned police station regarding the incident, upon which the police arrested the applicant and registered an FIR against the applicant in Crime No. 08/2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and no seizure has been made from the exclusive possession of the applicant. She submits that the other co- accused persons, namely, Akash Sahu and Sahil Barman have already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1937 of 2025 vide order dated 06.05.2025. She further submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 09.02.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He submits that the present applicant has 6 criminal antecedents under the IPC in the State of Madhya Pradesh, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender. He also submits that co-accused persons, namely Akash Sahu and Sahil Barman, were granted regular bail by this Court on the ground that they had no criminal antecedents. As such, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case also considering the fact that the present applicant has 6 criminal antecedents under the IPC in the State of Madhya Pradesh, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender, moreover, the other co-accused persons, namely Akash Sahu and Sahil Barman, were granted regular bail by this Court on the ground that they had no criminal antecedents, in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Abhishek Dahiya, involved in Crime No. 08/2025, registered at Police Station Parpodi, District – Bemetara (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. 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 Abhishek