1 2026:CGHC:3978 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10178 of 2025 Sumit Kumar Verma S/o Manish Kumar Aged About 21 Years R/o Near Nizamat Masjid Danapur Cantt, Police Station Danapur, District- Patna (Bihar). --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer-In-Charge, Cyber Police Station, District Bilaspur C.G. --- Non-applicant MCRC No. 245 of 2026 Anuj Kumar Singh S/o Devendra Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Pet Virecha, Police Station Bareli District- Gopalganj (Bihar) ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer-In-Charge, Cyber Police Station, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Non-applicant SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.01.24 13:14:52 +0530 2 ____________________________________________________ For Applicants : Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. For Objector (MCRC : Ms. Mahima Chandra, Advocate 245/26) Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.01.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.05/2025 registered at Police Station – Cyber Police, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 111(3) and 238 of 111(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and also under Section 66-D of the IT Act, 2008. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that during the period between 05.01.2025 and 27.01.2025, the complainant, Shyam Sundar Prasad, was induced by two persons, namely Arun and Heri Singh, to invest in share trading. They assured the complainant that he would receive returns amounting to three times the invested sum, representing that the market was performing favourably and that substantial profits were 3 imminent. Relying upon such representations, the complainant deposited a total amount of ₹14.25 lakhs into various bank accounts furnished by Arun and Heri Singh. Based on the above allegations, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the present applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the only allegation levelled against the applicant Sumit Kumar Verma is that he took commission for providing bank accounts of common people and applicant Anuj Kumar Singh used to work with co-accused persons and took 20% commission from the fraud amount. He further submits that co-accused Jitendra Agrawal has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C No.2299/2025 and co-accused Ramkripal Sahu has been granted bail by the Supreme Court vide SLP(Cr.) No.12394/2025 dated 03.11.2025, the applicants are young men aged about 21 years, who are in jail since 07.08.2025, conclusion of trial is likely to take quite some more time, therefore, on the grounds of parity, they may also be granted bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Objector and State oppose the bail application. Learned State Counsel 4 submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and there are no previous criminal antecedents against the present applicants, but as they are involved in illegal investment trading which is a serious offence, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, further considering that the role attributed to the applicants is minor, also considering that co-accused Jitendra Agrawal has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C No.2299/2025 and co-accused Ramkripal Sahu has been granted bail by the Supreme Court vide SLP(Cr.) No.12394/2025 dated 03.11.2025, the tender age of the applicants, their detention period, charge sheet has been filed, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail. 7. Let applicants Sumit Kumar Verma and Anuj Kumar Singh, involved in connection with Crime No.05/2025 registered at Police Station – Cyber Police, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for 5 the offence under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 111(3) and 238 of 111(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and also under Section 66-D of the IT Act, 2008 be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant/s shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/they 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/s shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his/their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant/s misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/thier presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant/s fail/s to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant/s 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 6 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/them in accordance with law. 8. This Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of 6 months. 9. 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 Priya