1 2025:CGHC:59205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9996 of 2025 Pankaj Kumar Mahant S/o Shri Sukhdas Mahant Aged About 28 Years (Mentioned As Pankaj Mahant In The Impugned Order) R/o C-12 Subhash Block Ward No. 18, Secl Coilery (Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order) Korba District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Gudhiyari, Police Station District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. This is the first 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. 17/2025 registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant, Umakant Verma, lodged a report stating that between 17.03.2024 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and 27.09.2024, while working on the post of Grade-II in the Loco Shed, Bilaspur, he was lured by an unknown person using mobile number 9690047185, who contacted him through WhatsApp and offered an opportunity to earn money from home by performing “free tasks.” It was informed to the complainant that by liking products shown on the Amazon App and sending screenshots, he would receive cashback at the rate of Rs.50 per like, and he would also be given “prepaid tasks” for which he would earn 30% profit on the amount deposited. Believing this, the complainant was cheated online of a total amount of Rs.50,00,000/- on different dates through different bank accounts. During investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet, and the specific allegation against the present applicant is that he had received an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant in his bank account. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and has not committed any offence as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant has no direct or indirect connection with the mobile number, bank account number, or WhatsApp group mentioned in the FIR lodged by complainant Umakant Verma. He further submits that the applicant was recently married, and a son was born on 14.01.2025, but due to the applicant’s detention on 24.03.2025, the child was deprived of proper care and unfortunately passed away on 24.05.2025. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely Prateek Jain, Gopal Agrawal, Rakesh Sahu, and Praveen Kumar Verma, have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble 3 Supreme Court, the Hon’ble High Court, and the learned Sessions Court, in SLP (Criminal) No. 16336/2025 (Annexure A-3) vide order dated 14.11.2025, in M.Cr.C. Nos. 9513/2025 and 9798/2025 vide orders dated 25.11.2025 and 03.12.2025 and in Bail Application No. 2693/2025 (Annexure A-5) vide order dated 11.09.2025 respectively. He also submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 24.03.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He also submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious, involving an online fraud of Rs.50,00,000/- committed through multiple transactions over several months. It is contended that the applicant received Rs.50,000/- of the cheated amount directly in his bank account, which shows his active participation in the offence. He also submits that the applicant cannot claim false implication when material collected during investigation links him to the fraudulent financial trail. Accordingly, considering the gravity of the economic offence and the applicant’s specific involvement, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 24.03.2025, the fact that the allegations against the applicant are serious, involving an online fraud of Rs.50,00,000/- committed through multiple transactions over several months and the applicant received Rs.50,000/- of the cheated amount directly in his bank account, which shows his active participation in the offence, but other co-accused persons, namely Prateek Jain, Gopal Agrawal, Rakesh Sahu, and Praveen Kumar Verma, have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court, and the learned Sessions Court, in SLP (Criminal) No. 16336/2025 vide order dated 14.11.2025, in M.Cr.C. Nos. 9513/2025 and 9798/2025 vide orders dated 25.11.2025 and 03.12.2025 and in Bail Application No. 2693/2025 vide order dated 11.09.2025 respectively and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant- Pankaj Kumar Mahant, involved in Crime No. 17/2025 registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 5 (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 sufÏcient 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 6 BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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. 8. OfÏce 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 Rahul Dewangan