1 2025:CGHC:46223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6263 of 2025 Shri Yash Sen S/o Sanjay Sen Aged About 23 Years R/o House No. 208, Imliya Pariyat, Patel Aata Chakki Ke Paas, Imliya, Post- Panagarh, Thana And District Jabalpur M.P. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Parpodi, District Bemetara C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) 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 10.09.2025 1. The defect which has been pointed out by the Registry is waved out. 2. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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 Sections 318(4), 111 of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that 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 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 officers, and informed her that some illegal article had been deported in her name, for which an FIR 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 other co-accused and registered an FIR against the accused persons in Crime No. 08/2025. 4. 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. 5. 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 further submits that the bail application of the co-accused namely Abhishek Dahiya and Arpit Mishra have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 4530/2025 and MCRC 3 No.4150/2025, vide order dated 16.07.2025 and 29.05.2025 respectively. Hence, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and further considering the fact that the bail application of the co-accused namely Abhishek Dahiya and Arpit Mishra have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 4530/2025 and MCRC No.4150/2025, vide order dated 16.07.2025 and 29.05.2025 respectively and the case of the applicant is similar to that case of applicant, thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant namely Shri Yash Sen, involved in Crime No.08/2025, registered at Police Station- Parpodi, District- Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111 of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal