1 2025:CGHC:34061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5647 of 2025 Prakhar Singh Chauhan S/o Surendra Singh Chauhan, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Churiyadongari, Tehsil Churiya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Chowki Chikhli, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh .. Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.07.2025 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. 119/25, registered at Police Chowki Chikhli, Police Station Kotwali, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 317(4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66 (C) of the Information Technology Act. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.18 19:05:32 +0530 2 2. Prosecution story in short is that information was received from Cyber Crime reporting that Tikam Gift Mobile, located in Tikam Complex, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, was involved in selling fake SIM cards. Thereafter, the co-accused persons were arrested, and in the memorandum statement of co-accused Komal Nishad, it came on record that, on the instructions of the present applicant, the co-accused Komal Nishad had obtained the details of villagers, activated the SIM cards, and sold them to other persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant is neither the proprietor nor the manager of Tikam Gift Mobile, Tikam Complex, and the alleged issuance and sale of fake SIM cards were not done by the present applicant. He also submits that the allegations made by the complainants are oral and are not supported by any documentary evidence, which shows that no offence has been committed by the applicant. Moreover, the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. He further submits that there was no wrongful intent on the part of the applicant to commit any offence. Hence, no offence has been committed by the present applicant. The applicant is working as an Assistant Manager at Jio Point, Ambagarh Chowki, and the possession of SIM cards by the applicant is not suspicious, as the applicant is working in the same business. He lalso submits that the present applicant has only 01 criminal antecedents of the similar nature except the present case and the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.03.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of 3 regular bail to the applicant. 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 is an Assistant Manager at Jio Point, Ambagarh Chowki, and on the basis of his instructions, the other co-accused were operating a network of selling fake SIM cards. He further submits that the present applicant has 1 more criminal antecedent of a similar nature, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled for grant regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case also considering the fact that the present applicant is an Assistant Manager at Jio Point, Ambagarh Chowki, and on the basis of his instructions, the other co-accused were operating a network of selling fake SIM cards, moreover, the fact that the present applicant has 1 more criminal antecedent of a similar nature, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender and also 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 4 application of the applicant – Prakhar Singh Chauhan, involved in Crime No. 119/25, registered at Police Chowki Chikhli, Police Station Kotwali, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 317(4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66 (C) 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