1 2026:CGHC:8117 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1586 of 2026 Ayush Pandey S/o Santosh Pandey Aged About 21 Years R/o H. No. 1174, Near Police Station Tikrapara, Sanjay Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)(Correct As Per Annexure A-2) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Cyber Range, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ankush Borkar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 79/2025, registered at Police Station : Cyber Range Raipur District – Raipur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 read with Section 3(5) of BNS. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.16 11:17:24 +0530 2 this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 24.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 9504 of 2025. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the applicant/accused Ayush Pandey along with other co-accused persons, fraudulently received an amount of Rs. 27,27,556 each into their respective bank accounts, being aware that the said amount was obtained dishonestly and through deceitful means. By habitually receiving such property and having reason to believe that it was acquired through fraudulent or dishonest methods, they were found to have concealed, possessed, or used the said property. Accordingly, against the present applicant and other co-accused persons, Crime No. 79/2025 has been registered at Cyber Range Police Station, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and investigation was initiated. During the course of investigation, the present applicant and other co-accused persons have been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, as the prosecution has framed a false and concocted story against him. The applicant is a 21-year-old young man who is presently pursuing his college education, and his prolonged detention in jail is adversely affecting his studies and future prospects. He has been in judicial custody for a considerable period, the investigation is already complete, and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court on 15.06.2025; therefore, further restriction of his liberty is not justified. The applicant has no direct involvement in any alleged cybercrime and his bank account 3 was merely used for certain transactions without his knowledge. He has never committed any criminal act in his lifetime and no criminal case has ever been registered against him in any police station, and he has no prior criminal antecedents and is not a habitual offender, posing no threat to society. Since the charge-sheet has already been filed, no further custodial interrogation is required and continued detention will serve no useful purpose. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 27.03.2025 for more than ten months and the trial is yet to commence, which amounts to pre-trial punishment and is contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The applicant is a permanent resident of the area with strong family and social ties and there is no likelihood of his absconding, and he has no international connections or resources to flee; appropriate conditions may be imposed to address any apprehension of tampering with evidence. He is a young individual with no history of violence, and the alleged offences are financial in nature and did not result in any physical harm, therefore the gravity of the offence must be balanced with his fundamental right to personal liberty and a speedy trial. The Hon’ble Apex Court has granted bail to a co-accused in a similar matter in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP No. 20364/2025 vide order dated 16.01.2026, and this Hon’ble Court has also granted regular bail to other co-accused persons in MCRC No. 2659/2026 vide order dated 28.01.2026. The applicant reserves his right to raise additional grounds and file relevant documents at the time of hearing, and being a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, he undertakes to furnish adequate surety and abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court; 4 hence, he is entitled to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is noted that this is the applicant’s second bail application and the earlier application bearing MCRC No. 9504/2025 was rejected on merits vide order dated 24.11.2025. It is further observed that the Hon’ble Apex Court has granted bail to a co-accused in a similar matter in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP No. 20364/2025 vide order dated 16.01.2026, and this Court has also granted regular bail to other co- accused persons in MCRC No. 2659/2026 vide order dated 28.01.2026. The present applicant has been in judicial custody since 27.03.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. In view of the aforesaid facts, particularly on the ground of parity and prolonged incarceration, and without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 8. Let the Second Bail of the Applicant – Ayush Pandey, involved in Crime No. 79/2025, registered at Police Station : Cyber Range Raipur District – Raipur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 read with Section 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the 5 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 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. 9. 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 vaibhav