1 2026:CGHC:18210 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2905 of 2026 Karan Chandrakar S/o Uttra Chandrakar Aged About 20 Years R/o Baniyadih Police Station - Khamhariya District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mohd. Rashid, Advocate For State/ Non-applicant : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21/04/2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.91/2025 registered at Police Station- Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.), for the ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.04.23 15:27:06 +0530 2 offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of BNS 2023 and Section 66-C of Information Technology Act. 2. The earlier first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No.4328/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2025 on merits. Hence this is second bail application. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a report was submitted by the Sub-Inspector, Cyber Cell, Kabirdham, alleging that certain POS agents misused customers’ KYC documents to issue fraudulent SIM cards, which were allegedly supplied to the present applicant and co-accused persons for operating cyber fraud, on the basis of which an FIR dated 06.03.2025 was registered against them. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant, being MCRC No. 4328/2025, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2025 on merits, and the present is a second bail application filed after a change in circumstances, inasmuch as charges have now been framed and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 08.03.2025, i.e., for more than one year. It is contended that there are 14 prosecution witnesses in total, out of which only 4 witnesses have been examined so far, and therefore the 3 trial is likely to take considerable time, particularly as the case is triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. It is further submitted that the prosecution case is based on documentary evidence which has already been seized, leaving no scope for tampering. The applicant is a young person with no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident, and there is no likelihood of his absconding. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and is ready to furnish adequate surety, hence, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that no substantial change in circumstances has been made out. It is contended that the applicant is involved in serious offences relating to cyber fraud involving misuse of KYC documents, and if released on bail, there is a likelihood of influencing witnesses or interfering with the trial. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the applicant, and the material available on record, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the present is a second bail application filed after framing of charge, the applicant is in judicial custody since 08.03.2025 (i.e., for more than one year), and out of total 14 prosecution witnesses only 4 witnesses have been examined so far, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Taking into account that the case is primarily based on documentary evidence already seized, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and accordingly, the bail application deserves to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application is allowed. Let the applicant namely- Karan Chandrakar involved in Crime No.91/2025 registered at Police Station- Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of BNS 2023 and Section 66-C of Information Technology Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the 5 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 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. 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. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Arpan