1 2026:CGHC:7850 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1552 of 2026 Ravi Sonkar S/o Santu Ram Sonkar Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No.19, Bagdehi Para Nayapara P.S. Gobra Nayapara Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Rajim District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.02.2026 1. This is the 7rst bail application 7led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 145/2025 registered at Police Station- Rajim, District Gariyaband, (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(A) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during the period from 30.05.2024 to 17.03.2025, scrutiny of certain bank accounts RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 maintained at the Bank of Maharashtra, Rajim Branch, namely account numbers 60493931643, 60491638398, 60509340556, 60509274354, 60515824007, 60493928857, and 60487661902, revealed fraudulent transactions amounting to ₹4,16,96,238/- allegedly obtained from victims across various States through deceitful means. It is alleged that the said accounts were knowingly used by the account holders for receiving and facilitating the transfer of money acquired through dishonest and fraudulent activities. On the basis of these 7ndings, FIR bearing Crime No. 145/2025 was registered for o<ences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)A, and 3(5) of the IPE, and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been 7led against the applicant/accused, who are stated to be prima facie involved in the o<ence, particularly in relation to transactions totaling ₹28,21,167/- in account No. 60487661902, which was allegedly permitted to be used for personal gain by allowing third persons to operate the said account. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any o<ence and he has been falsely implicated in o<ence in question. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused Mohnish Kumar Tandiya has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 18750/2025 vide order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure A-3), and another co-accused, namely Pawan Kumar Miri and Radha Sahni have also been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 29.01.2026 and 11.02.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 985/2026 and 1491/2026 respectively, and 3 the allegations levelled against the present applicant are similar in nature, and the applicant is further entitled to the bene7t of bail on the ground of parity. He also submits that the applicant has two criminal antecedents which are of the year 2014 and 2021, and he is in jail since 18.05.2025, the charge-sheet has been 7led and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been 7led, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of o<ence, period of detention of the applicant since 18.05.2025, the fact that though the present applicant and other co-accused were committed online fraud, but other co- accused Mohnish Kumar Tandiya has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 18750/2025 vide order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure A-3), and another co-accused, namely Pawan Kumar Miri and Radha Sahni have also been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 29.01.2026 and 11.02.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 985/2026 and 1491/2026 respectively, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused 4 persons, further the applicant has two criminal antecedents which are of the year 2014 and 2021, the charge-sheet has been 7led in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant – Ravi Sonkar, involved in Crime No. 145/2025 registered at Police Station- Rajim, District Gariyaband, (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(A) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 7le an undertaking to the e<ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 7xed 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 7xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suFcient 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 5 and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date 7xed 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 7xed 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 suFcient 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. OFce is directed to provide a certi7ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan