1 2025:CGHC:59482 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10051 of 2025 Anupam Shukla S/o Arun Kumar Shuukla Aged About 23 Years R/o Professor Colony, Sector 3, Gali No. 3, P.S. - Purani Basti, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh Range Cyber - (Wrongly Mentioned In B.A. 1075/2025) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. This is the Second Bail Application :led under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 44/2025, registered at Police Station- Civil Line, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 3846/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2025 on merits with liberty to proceed and conclude the trial RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 expeditiously. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, the brief facts of the matter are that on 20.01.2025, through the portal of the Ministry of Home A<airs, Government of India, the Cyber Range Police Station, Raipur, received information to take cognizance of certain ‘mule account’ holders. On receipt of the complaint, PS Civil Lines took cognizance and initiated inquiry regarding 104 mule bank accounts in Utkarsh Small Finance Bank, Raipur branch, allegedly used for cyber fraud involving Rs. 36,48,448/-. During the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested along with other co- accused, as he was working as a Sales Executive in the said bank and had opened :ve of these accounts from his ID to meet monthly targets. It is submitted that the applicant was completely unaware that these accounts were later misused by Yash Bhatia and his associates (the main accused) for carrying out the alleged cyber fraud. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application, earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 3846/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2025 on merits with liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. He further submits that the applicant has been in jail since 20.02.2025 and has, therefore, undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly nine months by the time this bail application is being considered. It is further submitted that some co- accused :rst bail application were granted on the ground of lady and the bail applications of others were rejected. The rejection 3 order of four co-accused was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 15006/2025, 12849/2025, 15613/2025 and 17452/2025, wherein the co-accused was granted bail vide order dated 19.11.2025. He further submits that the other co- accused person namely Om Arya, has been granted second bail by this Court in MCRC No. 9388/2025 vide order dated 27.11.2025 and therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that charge-sheet has been :led before the competent Court. 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 this is the applicant’s second bail application and that the earlier application, MCRC No. 3846/2025, was rejected on merits on 22.05.2025, further considering that the applicant is in jail since 20.02.2025 and has thus undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly nine months, also taking into account that while the bail applications of some co-accused were allowed on the ground of being women accused, the bail applications of others were rejected, and the rejection orders in respect of four co- accused were subsequently challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 15006/2025, 12849/2025, 15613/2025 and 17452/2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted 4 bail vide order dated 19.11.2025, further the other co-accused person namely Om Arya, has also been granted second bail by this Court in MCRC No. 9388/2025 vide order dated 27.11.2025, hence this Court is of the considered view that, on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 8. Let the Applicant – Anupam Shukla, involved in Crime No. 44/2025, registered at Police Station- Civil Line, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, 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 :le an undertaking to the e<ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates :xed 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 :xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without suHcient 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 5 and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date :xed 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 :xed 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 suHcient 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. OHce is directed to send a certi:ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan