1 2025:CGHC:61342 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9440 of 2025 Sajjan Kumar Gupta S/o Radheshyam Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Jamira Path Samri, Police Station And Tahsil- Samri, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Vishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, GA. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/12/2025 1. This is the second bail application filed 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.83/2025 registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4), 61(2), (A) of BNS and section 66(D) of IT Act. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.12.17 18:21:22 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a direction was issued by the Office of the Additional Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry into the mule account No. 50200038421730 held by the applicant, Sajjan Gupta, in HDFC Bank. Pursuant to the said direction, the police of Police Station Vishrampur conducted an inquiry with account holders Chandradev Paikra, Kamleshwar Singh, and Rupan Paikra. During the inquiry, they stated that the applicant had advised them to provide their bank account numbers in exchange for receiving a commission. Relying on this assurance, they provided their account details and received certain commission amounts. It was alleged that a total transaction of Rs. 20,39,596/- was made through the said bank account, which was used for the transfer of fraudulent amounts. Complaints regarding the said transactions were lodged in the states of Karnataka and Maharashtra. Hence this offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application of the applicant and the first bail application was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 01/08/2025 vide MCRC No.6036/2025. He would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no direct or substantive role in the alleged offences and a bare perusal of the charge-sheet does not disclose any material indicating the applicant’s involvement in any fraudulent transaction. It is further submitted that the prosecution case rests solely on the statements of certain account holders who have merely alleged that the applicant advised them to share bank account details. There is no evidence to show that the applicant received any commission or knowingly permitted the use of any bank account for fraudulent purposes. It is submitted that the applicant’s father is 3 completely paralysed and entirely dependent upon the applicant for his care and medical needs, and there is no other family member to look after him and medical documents in this regard are already on record. He would submit that so far as status of the trial is concerned, it is stated that out of 9 prosecution witnesses, 4 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He would further submit that applicant has no criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case, the applicant is in jail since 19.04.2025 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and he would submit that medical board report has been placed in compliance of the Courts order 27/11/2025 whereby it is stated that father of the applicant is stated to be 45% paralysed and so far as status of the trial is concerned, it is stated that out of 9 prosecution witnesses, 4 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He has pointed out that at the time of framing of charge, the accused persons have got 6 times the case adjourned, hence after great effort the charges were framed. In view of the same, if the applicant is released on the ground that his father is ill, the trial would be frustrated, therefore applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail application of the applicant and the first bail application was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 01/08/2025 vide MCRC 4 No.6036/2025. Considering the fact that out of 9 prosecution witnesses, 4 prosecution witnesses have been examined, further the fact that at the time of framing of charge, the accused persons have got 6 times the case adjourned, hence after great effort the charges were framed and if the applicant is released on the ground that his father is ill, the trial would be frustrated. Therefore this Court is not inclined to entertain this second bail application. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application of applicant Sajjan Kumar Gupta involved in Crime No.83/2025 registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4), 61(2), (A) of BNS and section 66(D) of IT Act., is rejected. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE gouri