1 2026:CGHC:20970 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4138 of 2026 Amit Mishra @ Pahlu S/o. Nityanand Mishra Aged About 30 Years Occupation Business, Caste Brahmin R/o. Mohollah Sattipara, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For State/ Non-applicant : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05/05/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.05/2026, registered at Police Station- Gandhinagar, District Suraguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4), 111, 3(5) of BNS. ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.06 19:31:55 +0530 2 2. That, as per the prosecution case, upon receipt of instructions from the ofÏce of the Nodal OfÏcer, Cyber Cell, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, vide letter dated 29.08.2025, regarding initiation of legal action against Point of Sales (POS) operators issuing fake mobile numbers and the use of mule bank accounts in cyber fraud, a written complaint was submitted by Inspector Pradeep Jaiswal on behalf of the Government. On the basis of the said complaint, a named FIR was registered against the holder of bank account No. 68026352482, namely co-accused Ujjwal Upadhyay, and investigation was set in motion. During the course of investigation, the said account holder was interrogated and, on the basis of his memorandum statement, co-accused persons Harshvardhan Korram and Satyam Keshari were apprehended. Subsequently, on the basis of their memorandum statements, further co-accused Deep Sinha @ Ayush Sinha and the present applicant were also implicated and arrested in the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, and his implication is based solely on the memorandum statements of co-accused persons, without any independent corroboration or recovery from his possession. It is further 3 submitted that the present crime has been registered while the applicant was already in custody since 25.07.2025, and no cogent or reliable evidence has been collected to establish his involvement, nor has any victim alleged any loss caused by him. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and no further custodial interrogation is required, while the trial is likely to take considerable time. Learned counsel further submits that though there are many previous antecedents, the applicant has been acquitted in most cases and is on bail, hence he prays for grant of regular bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant is actively involved in an organized cyber fraud racket and has knowingly facilitated the use of mule bank accounts for laundering proceeds of crime. It is further submitted that the applicant has multiple criminal antecedents, and charge sheet has been filed, it is further submitted that the applicant has as many as twenty criminal antecedents, details whereof have been mentioned in paragraph 4-A of the bail application. which reflects his habitual involvement in similar offences. it is prayed that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail and the application deserves to be rejected. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations and the material available on record. Further, taking into account that the applicant is in custody since 25.07.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the prayer for bail. It further appears from the record that as many as twenty criminal antecedents are registered against the applicant, out of which in four cases he has already been granted bail by this Court, namely in MCRC No. 1092 of 2026, MCRC No. 1063 of 2026, MCRC No. 1049 of 2026 and MCRC No. 1208 of 2026 vide order dated 18.03.2026 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the application. 7. Let applicant, Amit Mishra @ Pahlu involved in Crime No.05/2026, registered at Police Station- Gandhinagar, District Suraguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4), 111, 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following 5 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 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 6 under Section 351 of 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 Arpan