1 2025:CGHC:47786 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6572 of 2025 Ramkrishna Yadav S/o Bhujbal Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 7 Panorapara (Budgahan) P.S. Balauda Dist. Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh .. Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho P.S. Balauda Dist. Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh .. Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dybey, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.09.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 231/2025, registered at Police Station : Balauda District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 66(C) of I.T. Act and Section 42(3) (E) of Telecommunications Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant/accused has been charged with committing punishable offences under Section 420 of the IPC, Section 66(C) of the IT Act, and Section 42(3)(e) of the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Telecommunication Act. The allegation against the applicant is that, while operating a shop named Ram Mobile at Panorpra Budhghahan Main Road as an Airtel retailer, he was issued a code number by the company for activating SIM cards. It is alleged that the applicant, in collusion with co-accused persons, misused the said code to fraudulently activate SIM cards and provided them to co-accused persons for onward sale, with the intent of facilitating large-scale economic frauds or cyber crimes. It is further alleged that by such acts, the applicant/accused not only attempted to gain wrongful benefit for himself but also concealed the identity of genuine users, thereby deceiving Airtel Company and distributing SIM cards without authorization. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no seizure from the possession of the applicant and all the evidences are circumstantial. He further submits that the applicant has been arrested only on suspicion and the applicant is a licenced retailer and this is the first complaint against him of this nature. He further submits that even if evidence is believed in its true sense it is mere suspicion that if the numbers were issued from one store, would automatically mean someone from the store is a part of the scam and and the applicant is in jail since 04.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that, although the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no previous criminal 3 antecedents, the case diary reveals that the applicant, being a retailer of Airtel SIM cards, generated fake codes and activated fake SIMs which were sold to individuals seeking to conceal their identity while conducting illegal activities. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail 5. On 20.08.2025, this Court had directed the Investigating Officer to file an affidavit disclosing the evidence collected against the applicant pursuant to which, the IO has filed a detailed affidavit disclosing involvement of the applicant herein. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as under:- (i) In compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Court it is respectfully submitted that after registration of the FIR the information in respect to 18 fake SIMs have been obtained and the Customer Application Form (CAF in short) of the said SIMS were obtained wherein the name of the person in whose favour the said SIM were issued; father's name; full address; DOA; Temporary Address; State; Alternate Number; Connection Type; Point of Sale; mobile number; name of operator (AIRTEL) have been gathered and thereafter the issued mobile numbers were put on tracking with the cyber cell and the CDR/SDR were also sought and during investigation it has been revealed that similar crime has also been conducted by another accused persons and against them also FIR have been registered in District Janjgir Champa. (ii) That as per the report of the Cyber Cell the said 18 Fake SIMs and as per the CAF the mobile numbers issued in respect to the said SIMs are switched off and the same have not been issued in the commission of any other cyber offences.” 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- 4 diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court further there is no seizure made from his possession and the applicant is a licenced retailer and he is in jail since 12.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 8. Let applicant, Ramkrishna Yadav, involved in Crime No. 231/2025, registered at Police Station : Balauda District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 66(C) of I.T. Act and Section 42(3) (E) of Telecommunications Act., be released on bail on furnishing 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. 5 (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. 9. 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 Kunal