SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNIL KUMAR HIDCO v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
MCRC/4164/2025 · 2025-06-11
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24328 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24328 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:23420
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4164 of 2025 Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Hidco S/o Balichand Hidco Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Harrathema, P.S. And District- Balod, C.G.
... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. - Balod, District- Balod, C.G.
... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board 12/06/2025
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.60/2025 registered at Police Station Balod, District- Balod, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2), (A), 111 of B.N.S.
2. In compliance of the Courts order dated 29/05/2025 the comments have been sent by the trial court on 31/05/2025. From perusal of the GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.06.16 18:10:29 +0530
2 same, it is apparent that there has been an error committed in the bail rejection order with respect to the case crime number which was in fact Crime No.60/2025 whereas in the bail rejection order, it was mentioned as Crime No.60/2024 and the trial court has regretted about the said inadvertent mistake in the order. The said error crept in the bail rejection order and consequently because of the same, in the bail application filed on behalf of the accused in MCRC No.2128/2025 and in the order dated 8/05/2025 passed in MCRC No.2128/2025 the said error has also crept in. The trial court is directed to be careful in future while transcribing the order. Further an application i.e. CRMP No.1786/2025 has been moved for correction of crime number i.e. instead of Crime No.60/2024 it be corrected as Crime No.60/2025 in bail order dated 8/05/2025 passed by this Court in MCRC No.2128/2025 and the same has been rejected today as one of the co-accused Narayan Solwanshi has already been released from jail in pursuance of the order dated 8/05/2025 of this Court and CRMP No.1786/2025 has been moved thereafter.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in between 01.01.2024 to 02.02.2025, a total amount of Rs. 3,19,145/- has been received in ten account holders of Bank of Maharashtra, Unnati Plaza Balod from the various cyber frauds committed by several persons in the different state of country and the accounts have been found to be used to receive money for online fraud and for illegal activities, hence crime was registered against 10 mule bank account holders and on the basis of memorandum statement, the name of present applicant has been disclosed. On the basis of aforesaid, the offence was registered and the applicant was arrested on 15.04.2025.
3
4.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the applicant is said to have facilitated by opening the bank account through various persons who are co-accused and they have been granted bail. He would submit that the applicant is in jail since 15/04/2025, charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He would submit that total online fraud of Rs.3,19,000/- is committed. He would further submit that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, considering the fact that the applicant is said to have facilitated by opening the bank account through various persons who are co-accused and they have been granted bail, also considering the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the period of detention of the applicant since 15/04/2025, charge sheet has been filed and trial is likely to some time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant-Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Hidco, involved in Crime No.60/2025 registered at Police Station Balod, District- Balod, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4),
4 61(2), (A), 111 of B.N.S., be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 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. 5
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE gouri