1 2025:CGHC:52319 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6705 of 2025 Noor Mohammad Khan S/o Zahoor Ahamed Khan, Aged About 24 Years R/o Shri Nagar Khairani Road, Shaki Naka, Mumbai Maharashtra (Age And Detail Of Applicant Is Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station - Geedam, District - South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Syed Imtiaz Ali, 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 case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant has filed an 2 application before concerned police station alleging that the applicants along with other co-accused persons have cheated the complainant on the pretext of getting profit and made him to deposit a sum of Rs. 61,06,592/- in different bank accounts. Thereafter the police registered the offence against the unknown persons during investigation the present applicants have been arrested. On the basis of such compliant the concerned police registered the crime for an offence under section 318 (4), 111(1) (3) of BNS and section 66 (D) of I.T. Act. Hence this bail application before this Hon'ble Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant respectfully submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that one co-accused, namely Vaishali Padle, was granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 4291 of 2025 vide order dated 30.07.2025 on the ground that she is the mother of co- accused Prajwal Padle, who allegedly cheated the complainant on the pretext of providing profit and induced her to deposit a sum of Rs.61,06,592/- in various bank accounts, out of which Rs. 7,00,000/- was received in the account of the said co-accused. On the basis of the aforesaid order, the learned Trial Court also granted bail to three other co-accused persons, namely Jitendra Mairotha, Abhishek Gupta, and Biram Ram Nayak, vide order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Nirmala vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 27.04.2022. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that, so far as the present applicant is concerned, the bank names in which the alleged money was transferred, as mentioned in the FIR, do not include the 3 account of the present applicants. Therefore, he prays that the applicants may be granted regular bail in the present case. 4. The learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is further stated that, in compliance with the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 26.08.2025, the Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit mentioning that an FIR was registered at Police Station Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 111(1)(3) of the BNS and Section 66(d) of the I.T. Act. After registration of the FIR, the police commenced investigation, and on the basis of the complaint, the Cyber Police analysed the money trail and, during the course of investigation, found that an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was transferred from the complainant’s account to Account No. 0020010019582 of Off Bank Ltd., Laxman Nagar, District Pune, belonging to co-accused Vaishali Padle, whose mobile number 8308830870 was linked with the said account. On the basis of her memorandum, it was revealed that the account was being used by herself and one Prajwal, and through their UPI IDs, the transferred amount was further routed to another account bearing No. 38872283347 of the State Bank of India, for which both received the proceeds, and several other bank accounts were also traced. The money trail further revealed that the present applicant, Abu Talha Abdul Ali, S/o Abdul Ali, aged about 26 years, R/o Malegaon, District Nashik, Maharashtra, maintained Account No. 7858000100069213 with Punjab National Bank, Branch Soyagaon, linked with mobile number 9096630057, in which Rs.49,745/- had been transferred from the complainant’s account, and his memorandum was accordingly 4 recorded. During further investigation, it was found that transactions had also taken place from the complainant’s Account No. 16210720814432 of Utkarsh Small Finance Bank to Account No. 055099500042551 of Yes Bank, Branch Kanjurmarg, belonging to applicant Noor Mohammad, who works as a Zomato delivery boy and stated that his account was being used by one Sabib Sheikh. It was found that a transaction of Rs.2,00,000/- had been carried out from the said account, and Rs.5,000/- was given to Noor Mohammad as commission. On the basis of his memorandum, mobile number 7304873730, Rs.49,000/- in cash, and Rs.5,000/- transferred amount were seized, and as per the bank statement, Rs.2,00,000/- was transferred from the complainant’s account to that of the applicant. 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 applicants have 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 judicial custody since 23.04.2025, 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 5 case. 7. Let the Applicant – Noor Mohammad Khan , 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 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 6 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. - S Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav