1 2026:CGHC:21249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3339 of 2026 Gaurav Machkhand S/o Dinesh Chandra Machkhand, Aged About 24 Years R/o B.S.U.P. Colony Bhatagaon P.S. Tikarapara District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh (Through SHO, P.S. Civil Line District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh ) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.05.2026 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. 129/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Line, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(3) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, Bank Account No. 60484615494, bearing IFSC Code MAHB0000981 of Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.05.07 15:41:54 +0530 2 Branch, was found to be in the name of co-accused Anil Kshatriya, and it is alleged that the said account was operated and maintained by the applicant/accused, Gaurav Machkhand. The Mobile No. 9993750604 is registered with the said bank account, and a total deposit of Rs. 21,84,766/- has been reported therein. Pratik Yadav and two other persons, vide complainant acknowledgement No. 33103240039910, filed an online cyber fraud report regarding an unauthorized financial transaction of Rs. 2,000/- in their bank account on 27.03.2024. It has further been alleged that a total of 26 bank accounts bearing IFSC Code MAHB0000981 of the aforesaid bank have been reported in multiple account-related complaints. Co-accused Anil Kshatriya, in his memorandum statement, stated that on the request of the applicant/accused, Gaurav Machkhand, he accompanied him to the bank and opened the said account, for which he was paid Rs. 4,000/- in cash. He further stated that he handed over the bank account kit to Gaurav Machkhand. After completion of the investigation, the applicant was arrested in the present matter on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. She further submits that a bare perusal of the sum and substance of the present case clearly reveals that it lacks the foundational ingredients of any offence. It is submitted that the present applicant has absolutely no role in the alleged crime and was neither a participant in nor involved in the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that, for this reason, the applicant was not named in the FIR, nor were any allegations levelled against him by the complainant. It is submitted that when the applicant was questioned at the police station, he fully cooperated with the 3 investigation and provided correct information regarding his bank account and mobile number. No seizure of any kind has been made from the applicant, and he has been implicated solely on the basis of suspicion. As per the charge-sheet, there are approximately 14 witnesses in the present case, and there is every likelihood that the trial will take a considerable amount of time. Out of the 14 listed witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. She also submits that the similarly situated co-accused, namely, Ishika Singh, has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 13678/2025 vide order dated 13.10.2025. Subsequently, some of the co-accused, namely, Avinash Tandekar and Ashish Kalwani, have also been granted bail by this Court on the ground of parity in MCRC No. 148 of 2026 and MCRC No. 497 of 2026 vide orders dated 08.01.2026 and 14.01.2026, respectively. Therefore, she submits that the present applicant is also entitled to the grant of bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 13.04.2026, the Investigating OfÏcer filed a personal afÏdavit stating that co-accused Anil Kshatriya was operating a mule bank account in Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Branch, linked with mobile number 9993750604. It is submitted that online complaints regarding cyber fraud were lodged by Prateek Yadav and others on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Coordination Portal/1930. During investigation, it was found that Rs. 21,84,766/- was credited to the said account, out of which Rs. 21,81,184/- was withdrawn by the accused persons. The prosecution further submits that co-accused Anil Kshatriya, in his memorandum statement, stated that he had sold the bank account kit to the present applicant for Rs. 4,000/- and that the account was 4 operated by the applicant. The applicant, in his memorandum statement, also admitted that he and co-accused Anil Kshatriya had opened and sold bank accounts to one Anukul Bagh for monetary consideration. It is further submitted that four cyber fraud complaints from different States were linked to the said accounts and the investigation reveals the involvement of the applicant in an organized cyber fraud syndicate. The applicant was arrested on 26.05.2025 in connection with Crime No. 129/2025 for offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Lastly, it is submitted that, if released on bail, the applicant may abscond, tamper with evidence, and indulge in similar offences again. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and in view of the fact that the the similarly situated co-accused, namely, Ishika Singh, has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 13678/2025 vide order dated 13.10.2025. Subsequently, some of the co-accused, namely, Avinash Tandekar and Ashish Kalwani, have also been granted bail by this Court on the ground of parity in MCRC No. 148 of 2026 and MCRC No. 497 of 2026 vide orders dated 08.01.2026 and 14.01.2026, respectively, therefore, on the ground of parity, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Further, taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 26.05.2025, and considering that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of 5 bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let applicant, Gaurav Machkhand, involved in Crime No. 129/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Line, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(3) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya 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:- (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 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 Abhishek