1 2026:CGHC:19626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3857 of 2026 Suryakant Yadav S/o Dinesh Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Mahantpapa P.S. And Tahsil -Shivrinaraya, District Janjgir Champa C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏce Police Station Shivrinaraya, District - Janjgir Champa, C.G. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Kashish Saluja, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28/04/2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 259/2025 registered at Police Station- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 112(b), 318, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 2. The earlier first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 8267/2025, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2025, on merits. Hence, this bail application. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. As per the prosecution story, in brief, it is alleged that on the basis of information received from the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre regarding transactions of online fraudulent amounts in the bank accounts of the applicant and other co-accused, totaling Rs. 31,49,312/-, maintained at Axis Bank, Shivrinarayan Branch (Branch Code: 0004896), the present offences have been registered against the applicant and the co-accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits and the new ground which has been raised that in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed and charges have been framed by the learned trial Court, therefore, the investigation stands completed and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and hence, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in continued judicial custody. It is also submitted that the applicant is the sole bread earner of his family and his prolonged pre-trial detention is causing severe hardship to his dependents. Learned counsel further submits that similarly placed co-accused persons, whose earlier bail applications were rejected along with the present applicant, have subsequently been granted bail by this Court in their second bail applications in MCRC No. 1486/2026 and MCRC No. 1960/2026 vide orders dated 13.04.2026, and the case of the present applicant stands on identical footing, therefore, on the principle of parity, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on 3 bail. It is also submitted that, so far as the trial is concerned, out of the total witnesses, two witnesses have already been examined and they have turned hostile. The applicant is in judicial custody since 04.07.2025. Considering the slow progress of the trial and the fact that its conclusion is likely to take considerable time, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant and his involvement in the alleged offence, he is not entitled to be released on bail. It is further submitted that there is sufÏcient material available on record against the applicant. However, he fairly does not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant and the material available on record, it is noteworthy that the first bail application of the present applicant was earlier rejected by this Court on merits. However, the present (second) bail application has been filed on new grounds that the co-accused persons, namely Rambharos Yadav and Lakhan Lal Sultan, whose earlier bail applications were rejected by this Court, have subsequently preferred Second bail application before this Court and have been granted bail by this Court in their second bail applications in MCRC No. 1486/2026 and 4 MCRC No. 1960/2026 vide orders dated 13.04.2026, and the case of the present applicant stands on identical footing. Further considering that, out of the total witnesses, two witnesses have already been examined and have turned hostile and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail application. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let the applicant – Suryakant Yadav, involved in Crime No. 259/2025 registered at Police Station- Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 112(b), 318, 3(5) of the BNS, 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. 5 (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. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal