1 2025:CGHC:52312 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6689 of 2025 1 - Abu Talha Abdul Ali S/o Abdul Ali Aged About 26 Years R/o Nayapura Malegaon, Police Station Azad Nagar, Nasik, Maharashtra (Age And Detail Of Applicants Are Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) 2 - Ansari Asad Mehmood S/o Abdul Kukdoos Aged About 24 Years R/o Nayapura Malegaon, Police Station Azad Nagar, Nasik, Maharashtra (Age And Detail Of Applicants Are Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) ...Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station- Gidam, Distt.- South Bastar Dantewada, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : 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 applicants who have 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 2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant has filed an 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 applicants are innocent and have 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 3 account numbers in which the alleged money was transferred, as mentioned in the FIR, do not include the 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 stated that, in compliance with the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 28.08.2025, the Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit wherein it is mentioned 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. During investigation, it was 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, who stated in her memorandum that the said account was being used by her and one Prajwal for receiving and transferring money through various UPI IDs. On the basis of her statement, several other accounts were traced, including Account No. 7858000100069213 of Abdul Ali, R/o Malegaon, District Nashik, in which Rs. 49,745/- was found credited from the complainant’s account. The memorandum of the present applicant, Abu Talha Abdul Ali, revealed that his bank account was opened and used by his cousin, co-accused Ansari Asad Mehmood, for illegal money transactions, and the applicant used to share OTPs received on his mobile number in return for small commissions. The investigation clearly connects the applicant’s account and mobile number with the fraudulent transactions, and 4 considering the gravity of the offence and the active involvement of the applicant in the money trail, the State prays that he is not entitled to be released on bail. 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 applicants, 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 applicants have been in judicial custody since 24.04.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicants – Abu Talha Abdul Ali & Ansari Asad Mehmood, 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 each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect 5 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 applicants 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 applicants not 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 applicants 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 applicants are 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 them 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav