1 2025:CGHC:60288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10237 of 2025 1 - Sandeep Sahu S/o Shri Rajendra Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Tarri, P.S. Gobra Navapara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chandrashekhar Sahu S/o Shri Khelawan Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Govra Navapara, P.S. Gobra Navapara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Gudhiyari, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.12.2025 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have 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 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicants being MCRC No. 3867/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2025 on merits. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. As per the prosecution story, in brief, the complainant Umakant Verma, a Grade-2 employee at the Loco Shed, Bilaspur, lodged a written report alleging that between 17.03.2024 and 27.09.2024, he was cheated by an unknown person who contacted him through WhatsApp from mobile number 9690047185. The said person induced the complainant by promising that he could earn money by performing online tasks, such as liking Amazon products for ₹50 per like, and by completing prepaid tasks for a 30% profit. Believing these representations, the complainant transferred a total amount of ₹50,00,000/- into various bank accounts on different dates. During investigation, it was revealed that the present applicants had allegedly sold their bank account to one Amit Dewangan and had received ₹2,000–₹3,000 in return, and their accounts were used in the commission of the fraud. On this basis, the FIR was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this is the second bail application, earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 3867/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2025 on merits. He further submits that the applicant No.1 has been in jail since 05.02.2025 and applicant No.02 has been in jail since 24.03.2025 and, therefore, undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly eight to nine months by the time this bail application is being considered. It is further contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in SLP (Crl.) No. 16336/2025 Pratik Jain v. State of C.G., vide order dated 14.11.2025, has granted bail to a co-accused in the same crime number, and thereafter this Hon’ble Court, in MCRC No. 9513/2025 (Gopal Agrawal v. State of C.G.), 3 vide order dated 25.11.2025, has also enlarged another co-accused on bail on identical facts. Since the case of the present applicants stands on the same footing as the aforesaid co-accused, it is urged that they may also be granted bail on the ground of parity. 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. 3867/2025, was rejected on merits on 20.05.2025, further considering that the applicant No.1 is in jail since 05.02.2025 and applicant No.02 is in jail since 24.03.2025 and thus undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly eight to nine months, also taking into account that the rejection order in respect of co-accused was subsequently challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in SLP (Crl.) No. 16336/2025 Pratik Jain v. State of C.G., vide order dated 14.11.2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail. Thereafter, this Court, in MCRC No. 9513/2025, Gopal Agrawal v. State of C.G., vide order dated 25.11.2025, has also extended the benefit of bail to another co-accused on identical facts and circumstances arising out of the same FIR, hence this Court is of the considered view that, on the ground of parity, the present applicants also deserve to be released on bail. 4 8. Let the Applicants – Sandeep Sahu and Chandrashekhar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 17/2025, registered at Police Station- Gudhiyari, District : Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 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 that they 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 their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (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 sufÏcient 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. 9. 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