1 2025:CGHC:52317 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6793 of 2025 Pemparam S/o Padale, Aged About 25 Years R/o Dasniya, Police Station Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Geedam, District Dantewada (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Satyendra Mahadewa, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.10.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 27/2025 registered at Police Station – Geedam District – South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111(1)(3) of the BNS and Section 66(d) of the I.T. Act. 2. The prosecution case in short is that, It is alleged against the accused/applicant that he leased his Central Bank of India account number 3754721230 and Federal Bank account number 2 15540100062692 to Navratna Prajapati, for the transfer of gaming funds or money from abroad. It is also alleged that he leased other accounts as wellfor the purpose of transferring fraudulently acquired money through Navratna Prajapati. An amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been recovered from the accused/applicant. Thus, the accused offense is of an online fraud nature where illicit funds are deposited into his bank accounts. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant respectfully submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations leveled against the applicant are vague, baseless, and not supported by any cogent or legal evidence. It is submitted that the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS, relating to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, is not substantiated by any material connecting the applicant to the alleged acts. Similarly, the invocation of Section 111(1)(3) of the BNS, pertaining to organized crime, is wholly unwarranted, as there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant is part of any organized syndicate or has engaged in any continuing unlawful activity as defined under Section 111(1) of the BNS. The alleged offence under Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act is bailable in nature, and the applicant has fully cooperated with the investigating agency throughout the investigation. The prosecution story appears to be concocted and not based upon legal evidence, as there is no reliable witness to support it. It is further submitted that the continued detention of the applicant is unjustified, unfounded, and likely to cause irreparable harm to his future prospects, being a young individual. The material available on record does not fulfill the essential ingredients of 3 the offences alleged. The applicant has no connection, direct or indirect, with the alleged offence, and his detention serves no useful purpose. It is also submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the competent Court and he in jail since 22.04.2025 Therefore, he prays that regular bail may kindly be granted to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court in the present case. He further submits that, in compliance with this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 28.08.2025, the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case has submitted an affidavit stating that an FIR was registered at Police Station Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 111(1)(3) of the BNS and Section 66(d) of the I.T. Act. After receiving the FIR, the police commenced investigation into the matter, and on the basis of the complaint, the Cyber Police initiated an inquiry through the money trail. During the course of investigation, it was found that the amount had been transferred from the complainant’s bank account to “Off Bank Ltd., Laxman Nagar, District Pune,” wherein Rs. 7,00,000/- had been credited to Account No. 0020010019582 belonging to one Vaishali Padle, whose mobile number 8308830870 was linked to the said account. On the basis of her memorandum, she stated that the account was operated by herself and one Prajwal, and she had also provided the UPI IDs of both herself and Prajwal, through which the amount transferred in her name was further routed to another mobile number linked to State Bank of India Account No. 38872283347 used by them. Several other bank accounts were also traced on the basis of her memorandum. Further investigation revealed that one Abu Talha Abdul Ali, aged about 26 years, 4 resident of Malegaon, District Nashik (Maharashtra), was operating Bank Account No. 7858000100069213 with Punjab National Bank, Branch Soyagaon, having mobile number 9096630057 registered with the bank, wherein Rs. 49,745/- had been transacted from the complainant’s account, and his memorandum was recorded. In furtherance of the investigation, a police team went to Rajasthan on the basis of the money trail and found that the applicant, Pemparam, was using Federal Bank Account No. 15540100062692, in which a transaction of Rs. 88,000/- had taken place from the account of Bhupendra Telamiya. His memorandum was recorded on 07.05.2025, wherein he disclosed that he is a resident of Village Dasnia, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan), and that one Navratan had persuaded him to provide his bank account on rent for gaming fund transactions. He, therefore, opened another account bearing No. 375472130 with Central Bank of India, and on the basis of his memorandum, one OnePlus mobile phone having SIM No. 9602421693 containing WhatsApp and Instagram records, along with Rs. 5,000/-, was seized, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the present applicant, and also taking into account that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and that three co-accused persons, namely Jitendra Mairotha, Abhishek Gupta, and Biram Ram Nayak, have already been granted bail by the Trial Court, while one co-accused, namely Vaishali Padale, has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 4291 of 2025 vide order dated 30.07.2025, and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicant has been in 5 judicial custody since 22.04.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicant – Pemparam, involved in Crime No. 27/2025 registered at Police Station – Geedam District – South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111(1)(3) of the BNS and Section 66(d) of the I.T. Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 6 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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav