1 2025:CGHC:59724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10111 of 2025 Shubham Sharma S/o Rajesh Sharma Aged About 26 Years R/o C-125, Gayatri Nagar, Near Jagannath Mandir, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station – Cyber Range, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate appearing through video conferencing, and Mr. Ankush Borkar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.12.2025 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed 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- Cyber Range, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 2486/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2025 on merits with liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant is an employee of RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 the Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Branch Civil Line Raipur on dated 20.01.2025 vide portal of Ministry of Home Government of India Police Station Cyber Range Raipur has received information to take cognizance upon the mutual account holders so police has taken cognizance and made some query about 104 bank accounts of holders which were alleged to be used for cyber cheating of Rs. 36,48,448/- and on the query from the applicant and other bank employees, they have given the details of the bank account holders and duly informed about the procedure for opening of bank account and also informed that the bank account has been opened according to the procedure and the norms prescribed by the bank and after due procedure opened the bank account of some of the account holders. So, on the basis of the information given by the applicant and the other bank employees, all the bank account holders (customers) have been found on their respective address then some query has alleged to be made some account holders and then on the basis of their information the applicant has been arrested because they have taken some money from one Yash Bhatia and his associates who have been alleged to open the bank account of the said customers for their own use. So FIR has been lodged against the bank account holders and again called the applicant and arrested the applicant in the alleged commission of offence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application, earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 2486/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2025 on merits with liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. He further submits that the applicant has been in jail since 04.02.2025, therefore, he has undergone a substantial period of incarceration of 3 nearly ten months by the time this bail application is being considered. It is further submitted that some co-accused first bail application were granted on the ground of lady and the bail applications of others were rejected. The rejection 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, and on the same ground a second bail application of the co-accused has also been allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 9388/2025, 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 filed 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. 2486/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2025 with a direction to conclude the trial expeditiously, further considering that the applicant is in jail since 04.02.2025 and has thus undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly ten 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 4 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 bail vide order dated 19.11.2025, and on the same ground a second bail application of the co-accused has also been allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 9388/2025, 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 – Shubham Sharma, involved in Crime No. 44/2025, registered at Police Station- Cyber Range, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of BNS, 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 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 5 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 trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no any legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar