1 2025:CGHC:43698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6791 of 2025 Ajay Meena S/o Bhagwan Sahay Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Padli, Tahsil Sikrai, District : Dausa, Rajasthan. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gaurela, District : Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.08.2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 46/2025 registered at Police Station- Gaurela, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 314, 317(2), 317(4), 61(2)(A), 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the IT Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 3499 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2025 on RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 merits with liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 3. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 01.03.2025, ASI Manoj Kumar Hanotiya, Cyber Cell, Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, lodged a report stating that, as per the information received from the Directorate Coordination Portal, an online fraud was committed by mule account holders who fraudulently received an illegal amount of Rs.50,900/- through their bank accounts, it is further alleged that these accounts are linked with several complaints of online financial fraud registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal across different police stations in India, and that the racket was found to be operating in the jurisdiction of Police Station Gaurela, whereupon offence was registered against the account holders for having fraudulently obtained the said amount through pre-planned cyber fraud, leading to registration of FIR No.46/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 314, 317(2), 317(4), 61(2)(A), 112 of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the IT Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is second bail application and the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits with a direction to conclude the trial expeditiously but trial has not concluded and the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.04.2025. He further submits that complainant of the case, who is the star witness, has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 3 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the second bail application of the present applicant. 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 that though the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits with a direction to conclude the trial expeditiously and complainant of the case, who is the star witness, has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case and the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.04.2025, but the present applicant is a resident of Rajasthan and trial is in progress and further the applicant being a mule account holder, fraudulently received Rs.50,900/- through his bank account as part of a pre- planned cyber fraud racket linked with several online financial fraud complaints across India, therefore, I am not inclined to grant second bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Ajay Meena, involved in Crime No. 46/2025 registered at Police Station- Gaurela, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 314, 317(2), 317(4), 61(2)(A), 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the IT Act, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as 4 possible within a period of four months from the receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. 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 Rahul Dewangan