1 2026:CGHC:979 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 48 of 2026 Rameshwar Markam S/o Judawan Markam Aged About 29 Years R/o Jairam Nagar, P.S. Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Cyber Range- Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 08/2025, registered at Police Station- Cyber Range- Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 61, 317(5), 318(4), 111(3)(4) and 323 of BNS. 2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 4332/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2025 on merits with liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 3. The case of the prosecution, is that on the basis of information received RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 from the Samanavaya Portal operated by Government of India, different banks and the Police Headquarters, and after due investigation, it was found that the users and account holders of several banks namely UCO Bank, ICICI Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, SBI, Bandhan Bank, Bank of Baroda, Indian Bank and various other banks through conspiracy, money has been stolen from the account holders, without their consent and by luring them. These mule accounts were used to harm the victims and take undue advantage of the defrauded money. Total 82 mule accounts have been duped and a total sum of Rs. 97,83,492/-was deposited fraudulently. The account holders knowingly committed fraud by handling their accounts and also helped in hiding and transferring the defrauded money. In light of the above information, the Police Station-Cyber Range, Bilaspur registered Crime No. 08/2025 on 13.02.2025 and in consequence of the same applicant was arrested. Hence, this application. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the co-accused, Shekhar Chaturthi and Yuvraj Singh Kashyap who are similarly situated with respect to the allegations and the nature of the offence, has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 10726 of 2025 and 11402/2025, vide order dated 16.09.2025 and 09.10.2025, respectively, on which ground the second bail applications of four co- accused persons were allowed vide orders dated 11.11.2025, 11.11.2025, 20.11.2025 and 25.11.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 9022/2025, 8860/2025, 9393/2025 and 9453/2025. Furthermore, the 3 bail applications of the co-accused persons have been allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2025 passed in MCRC No.2118/2025, 20.05.2025 passed in MCRC No.3966/2025, 29.05.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 4137/2025, 4148/2025 and 4182/2025, 27.05.2025 passed in MCRC No. 4071/2025, 20.06.2025 passed in MCRC No.4039/2025, 20.06.2025 passed in MCRC No.4013/2025, 17.11.2025 passed in MCRC No.8265/2025. The principle of parity in bail is a well-established legal position, whereby similarly placed accused persons should ordinarily be treated alike, unless there exists a material distinction justifying differential treatment. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court while granting ball, including furnishing personal bonds, sureties, or any other conditions deemed necessary to secure his attendance during the trial. As such, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity with the co-accused and should be granted ball pending investigation/trial. He further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 13.02.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submitted that the applicant along with the co-accused persons have committed a fraud to the tune of Rs. 97,83,492/- from 82 Bank Accounts, therefore the applicant is not entitled to be granted bail by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 4 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents as well as the fact that the co-accused, Shekhar Chaturthi and Yuvraj Singh Kashyap who are similarly situated with respect to the allegations and the nature of the offence, has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 10726 of 2025 and 11402/2025, vide order dated 16.09.2025 and 09.10.2025, respectively, on which ground the second bail applications of four co- accused persons were allowed vide orders dated 11.11.2025, 11.11.2025, 20.11.2025 and 25.11.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 9022/2025, 8860/2025, 9393/2025 and 9453/2025. Furthermore, the bail applications of the co-accused persons have been allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2025 passed in MCRC No.2118/2025, 20.05.2025 passed in MCRC No.3966/2025, 29.05.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 4137/2025, 4148/2025 and 4182/2025, 27.05.2025 passed in MCRC No. 4071/2025, 20.06.2025 passed in MCRC No.4039/2025, 20.06.2025 passed in MCRC No.4013/2025, 17.11.2025 passed in MCRC No.8265/2025, as such the principle of parity in bail cannot be overlooked, the applicants are similarly situated with respect to the allegations and the nature of the offense. No material distinction has been brought to notice which would justify differential treatment in the matter of bail. The applicant has also undertaken to comply with all conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose to ensure his attendance during trial. In the said circumstance, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 5 8. Let the Applicant – Rameshwar Markam, involved in Crime No. 08/2025, registered at Police Station- Cyber Range- Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 61, 317(5), 318(4), 111(3)(4) and 323 of BNS, 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 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 6 of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. Office 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 Rajshekhar