1 2025:CGHC:59489 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10034 of 2025 Yash Sen S/o Sanjay Sen Aged About 23 Years R/o House No. 208, Imliya Paryat Near Patel Atta Chakki, Imliya, P.O. Panagarh, Police Station Jabalpur, District Jabalpur M.P. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Parpodi, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Karuna Masih, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. This is the Second Bail Application 7led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 08/2025 registered at Police Station Parpodi, District Bemetara (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66 (D) of I.T. Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 6263/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2025 on merits. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant along with co-accused persons committed online fraud with the complainant by calling her through WhatsApp, impersonating themselves as police oAcers, and informing her that an illegal parcel had been seized in her name and an FIR had been registered at Police Station Khamtarai. They allegedly showed a fabricated video clip of a police station and told her that the FIR could be quashed only if she paid a certain amount. Out of fear, the complainant transferred a total sum of Rs.9,11,999/- through multiple UPI transactions. Thereafter, she lodged a report at the concerned police station, based on which the applicants were arrested and FIR in Crime No. 08/2025 was registered against them. Hence this bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any o=ence and he has been falsely implicated in o=ence in question. He submits that this is the second bail application; the earlier application (MCRC No. 6263/2025) was rejected on merits by this Court on 10.09.2025. He submits that a new ground has arisen, namely that out of eight accused persons, 7ve co-accused have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 06.05.2025 in MCRC No. 1937/2025 and dated 27.06.2025 in MCRC Nos. 4067/2025 and 4077/2025, whereas the two co- accused whose bail was rejected have previous criminal antecedents. The present applicant has no criminal antecedent and stands on the same footing as those who have been granted bail. She also submits that the applicant and the complainant have 3 amicably settled the dispute outside the Court, and no amount remains due, as reGected in the agreement 7led as Annexure A/4. It is further submitted that the applicant is a young boy, is in custody since 11.06.2025, the charge-sheet has been 7led and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been 7led in the present case. 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, nature and gravity of o=ence, period of detention of the applicant the fact that this is the second bail application; the earlier application (MCRC No. 6263/2025) was rejected on merits by this Court on 10.09.2025. Out of eight accused persons involved, 7ve co-accused released on bail vide order dated 06.05.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 1937/2025, vide orders dated 27.06.2025 in M.Cr.C. Nos. 4067/2025 and 4077/2025, have already been granted bail by this Court. The two accused whose applications were rejected were denied bail solely on the ground of their previous criminal antecedents. The present applicant has no criminal antecedents and stands on the same footing as the co-accused who have been granted bail. The applicant is in jail since 11.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is also taken into account that the applicant and the complainant have amicably 4 settled their dispute and no outstanding amount remains to be paid, as evident from the agreement placed on record. In view of the above new ground, parity with the co-accused who have been granted bail, the applicant’s clean antecedents, the period of detention, and the settlement between the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the second bail application deserves to be allowed. 8. Let the Applicant- Yash Sen, involved in Crime No. 08/2025 registered at Police Station Parpodi, District Bemetara (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66 (D) of I.T. Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 7le an undertaking to the e=ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 7xed 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 7xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suAcient cause, the trial court may 5 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 7xed 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 7xed 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 suAcient 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. OAce is directed to send a certi7ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan