1 2025:CGHC:60590 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10312 of 2025 • Suraj Saxena S/o Shri Nanku Ram Saxena Aged About 24 Years R/o Suyash Hospital Kota, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Civil Line Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.12.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 44/2025, registered at Police Station – Civil Line, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 3(5), 317(2), 317(4) and 317(5)of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that an information was received through the cyber crime reporting portal that 104 bank accounts has VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.12.16 11:01:57 +0530 2 been fraudulently opened in Utkarsh Small Finance Bank, Civil Lines Branch Raipur and were being used for receiving proceeds of cyber fraud. Acting on directions from the police headquarters, a report regarding the incident was forwarded to police station Civil Lines, Raipur, where an FIR was registered against all 104 accounts holders, including the present applicant, hence this bail application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. He further submits that some co-accused first bail application were granted on the ground of lady and the bail applications of other 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. Further, the applicant is in jail since 23.01.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, and therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, 3 nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that some co-accused first bail applications were granted on the ground of lady and the bail applications of other co-accused were rejected. The rejection orders of four co-accused were 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, also there is no any criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 23.01.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence this Court is of the considered view that, on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 7. Let applicant, Suraj Saxena, involved in Crime No. 44/2025, registered at Police Station – Civil Line, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 3(5), 317(2), 317(4) and 317(5) of the BNS, 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:- (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 4 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 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali