1 2026:CGHC:21163 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4182 of 2026 Pradeep Jain S/o Hastimal Jain Aged About 48 Years At - Varun Path, Man Serovar Colony, Jaipur P/s Varun Path District Jaipur, Rajasthan ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Cyber Cell Headquarter, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 4/2024, registered at Police Station Cyber Cell Headquarter, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 1894/2026 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2026, on merits. Hence, the bail application. 3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Vikas Lahoti, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 received a WhatsApp message on 27.04.2024 from a person named "Asana," who introduced herself as being associated with Naresh Rathi and induced him to invest in share trading by promising high returns. He was added to a WhatsApp group named Avendus Stock Market Outlook-B108, where multiple members were allegedly posting screenshots of profits and bank details. On their instructions, the complainant downloaded the "Asamtop" app through a provided link, created login credentials, and between 14.05.2024 to 11.06.2024 transferred a total amount of Rs.59,23,000/- from his Kotak Mahindra Bank and IDBI Bank accounts into various bank accounts as directed for share trading. When the complainant attempted to withdraw his alleged profits, he was informed that his funds had been invested in an IPO (Majeenda Life Care) and that additional payments were required to release the shares and profits. Despite further transferring Rs.21,00,000/- on 10th and 11th June out of fear of losing his investment, he was unable to withdraw any amount or sell the shares. Alleging that he had been cheated of Rs.59,23,000/- by inducement and false promises of trading profits, Crime No. 04/2024 was registered at Cyber Police Station Range, Raipur under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. During investigation, it was revealed that the bank account of accused Pradeep Kumar Jain was used in the fraudulent transactions, and he admitted to having handed over his bank account, ATM, and SIM to other persons for monetary consideration. Hence, the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail 3 application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court. The new ground for filing the present second bail application is that the co-accused, Pratap Patra, whose bail application had also earlier been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 10164/2025 vide order dated 05.02.2026, thereafter preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, registered as Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5893/2026, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.04.2026, was pleased to enlarge the said co-accused on bail. It is further submitted that the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the aforesaid co-accused and stands on the same footing; therefore, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the first bail application of the present applicant has already been rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 1894/2026 vide order dated 24.02.2026. However, he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that the first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court on merits and the new ground for filing of the second bail application is that the co-accused namely Pratap Patra whose bail was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 10164/2025 vide order 4 dated 05.02.2026, being aggrieved by the said rejection, he preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering the matter, was granted bail to co-accused Pratap Patra in SLP (Criminal) No. 5893/2026, vide order dated 10.04.2026 (copy of the order is annexed herewith as Annexure A-4) and further it appears that the case of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant is hereby allowed. 9. Let applicant, Pradeep Jain, involved in Crime No. 4/2024, registered at Police Station Cyber Cell Headquarter, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 5 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal