1 2026:CGHC:6066 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10030 of 2025 • Chandradev Paikara S/o Lal Baran Paikara Aged About 24 Years R/o Sonpur, Bodelipara Chowki- Karanji, P.S.- Vishrampur, District- Surajpur C.G. ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Vishrampur (Wrongly Mentioned As Bishrampur), District- Surajpur C.G ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 83/2025, registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4) and 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 66(d) of IT Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that direction was given by the Office of Additional Superintendent of Police for conducting enquiry into the mule account no. 822010016221891 of applicant holding in Axis VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.02.04 16:44:40 +0530 2 Bank. On the basis of said direction, the Police of Police Station, Vishrampur conducted enquiry from account holder Chandradev Paikra, Kamleshwar Singh and Rupan Paikra, in which, they stated that the applicant advised to give bank account number for receiving commission and on the basis of said assurances, they have given their bank account and obtained commission amount. It was alleged that total transaction of amount of Rs. 20,39,596/- was made in the said bank account and the said bank account was used for transfer of fraud amount and the complainant to the said effect was lodged at Karnataka and Maharashtra. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It was further stated that there is no significant evidence on record to prove the present applicant's involvement in committing the aforementioned crime. He also submits that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.9232 of 2025 vide order dated 16.12.2025. The applicant is in jail since 17.04.2025 and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that In pursuance of the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court, an affidavit has been filed by the Investigating Officer in the present case, which indicates that the present applicant was involved in the said crime. It is further submitted that the bail application of the co-accused, namely Sajjan Kumar Gupta, was rejected by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 6036 of 2025 vide order dated 01.08.2025. therefore, he is not entitled for 3 grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and from the perusal of the case diary, it is prima facie evident that the applicant was actively involved in an organized cyber fraud racket by providing their bank accounts as mule accounts for laundering proceeds of cyber crime, the investigation reveals that a total amount of Rs. 20,39,596/- has been fraudulently transacted through various bank accounts, considering the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.9232 of 2025 vide order dated 16.12.2025 , thus, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to grant regular bail to the applicant, on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, this bail application of applicant Chandradev Paikara involved in Crime No.83/2025, registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4) and 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 66(d) of IT Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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. 4 (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. 8. 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 vaishali