1 2026:CGHC:6070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8201 of 2025 Sunil Kumar S/o Dinesh Kumar Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kaseru, Ward No. 05, P.S. Mukundgarh, District Jhunjhun (Rajasthan) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Bacheli, District Dantewada (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Dy. G. A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.02.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 29/2025, registered at Police Station : Bacheli, District Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111(1)(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 66(D) of I.T. Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report at the concerned Police Station alleging that unknown accused persons fraudulently opened and operated a bank account RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 in his name and withdrew money therefrom through ATM transactions. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered an offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 111(1) (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. During the course of investigation, on the basis of memorandum statements and other material collected, the present applicant was arrested in connection with the said offence. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is contended that the applicant has neither withdrawn any amount from the complainant’s bank account nor played any role in the commission of the alleged offences. The seizure of Rs.25,000/- from the possession of the applicant is stated to be arbitrary, having been effected without proper investigation, without due consideration of the material available on record, and solely on the basis of a memorandum statement. It is further submitted that the applicant did not act in the manner alleged by the prosecution and that the investigation has been conducted in a casual and improper manner, resulting in the wrongful registration of the case and arrest of the applicant on false and baseless allegations. He further submits that the essential ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 111(1)(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act are not made out against the applicant, and the prosecution story is a concocted and 3 fabricated one, framed only to falsely implicate him. On the basis of the material available on record, it is urged that no prima facie case is made out against the present applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that the present applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 25.08.2025, the applicant is the sole earning member of his family and his continued incarceration would subject his dependent family members to severe financial hardship, and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that pursuant to the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the concerned Investigating OfÏcer has filed a detailed personal afÏdavit placing on record the evidence collected during the course of investigation. It is contended that the investigation has revealed a well-planned cyber fraud racket, wherein the present applicant played an active role by collecting and supplying bank accounts, ATM cards, SIM cards and related documents to other accused persons for the purpose of laundering the proceeds of cyber crime. The statements of the complainant and several other victims have been recorded, bank statements obtained, and it has been found that a total amount of Rs.7,91,537/- was fraudulently transacted through various bank accounts. The afÏdavit further discloses that incriminating articles including mobile phones, Aadhar card, ATM cards, passbooks, PAN card and cash have been seized from the 4 possession of the applicant, and that the applicant has admitted his role in his memorandum statement. Considering the gravity of the offence, the organized manner in which the cyber fraud was committed, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the afÏdavit filed by the Investigating OfÏcer in compliance of the order of this Court disclosing the material collected during investigation, it prima facie appears that though the applicant had a role in the transactions as reflected in the investigation and afÏdavit, however, it is also evident that the investigation is substantially complete, the relevant documents, electronic records and articles have already been seized, and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Further the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and he has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 25.08.2025, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time. Considering the overall facts, the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the applicant, the opposition raised by the learned State counsel through afÏdavit, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 5 7. Let the Applicant – Sunil Kumar, involved in Crime No. 29/2025, registered at Police Station : Bacheli, District Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111(1)(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 66(D) of I.T. Act, 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 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. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fail 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. 6 (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. 8. 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 Rahul Dewangan