1 2026:CGHC:4940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 985 of 2026 Pawan Kumar Miri S/o Shri Mohan Miri Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Satnami Para Bakli, Police Station - Rajim, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Rajim, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 145/2025, registered at Police Station Rajim District- Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(A) and 3(5) of B.N.S. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 7414/2025, vide order dated KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 26.09.2025, on merits. Hence, the bail application. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 17.05.2025, the Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.), registered Crime No. 145/2025. It is alleged in the FIR that, based on reliable sources and through the Coordination Portal operated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the police investigated a mule account racket. During the investigation, seven mule bank accounts were identified in the Bank of Maharashtra, Rajim Branch (C.G.), and transactions amounting to Rs. 4,16,96,238/- were found to be related to the crime committed by unknown persons. The allegation against the present applicant is that transactions totaling Rs. 1,03,13,438/- were reflected in his bank account bearing No. 60493928587 of the Bank of Maharashtra. It is alleged that, out of greed, he provided his bank account to other persons and received commission/dividends. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits and the new ground for filing of the second bail application is that the applicant is a villager and a poor person who survives on daily wages. The main accused, Harish Sahu, allured villagers to open bank accounts on the promise that they would receive Rs. 3,000/-, and in this manner obtained their bank account details. The applicant is an illiterate person with no knowledge of online banking transactions and has not committed the offence alleged against him. Earlier, as per the afÏdavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, District Gariyaband, in the first bail application filed by the applicant, 3 it was alleged that the main accused Harish Sahu transferred Rs. 3,000/- to the applicant and that a total transaction of Rs. 1,03,13,438/- was carried out through the applicant’s bank account in a single day. He further submtis that the bail application of co- accused Monish Kumar Tandiya, whose bail application had earlier been rejected by a common impugned order, was subsequently allowed bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.01.2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 423/2026 and further the case of the co-accused Monish Kumar Tandiya is similar to that of the present applicant. However, since the present applicant is a poor person, he is unable to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, he is filing the present application before this Court. As the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing, he may also be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 7414/2025, vide order dated 26.09.2025, on merits. Hence, she prays that the present bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that the first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court on merits and the new ground for filing of the second bail application is that the co-accused namely Mohnish Kumar Tandiya whose bail was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 7099/2025 vide 4 order dated 26.09.2025, being aggrieved by the said rejection, co- accused Mohnish Kumar Tandiya preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering the matter, was granted bail to co-accused Mohnish Kumar Tandiya in SLP (Criminal) No. 18750/2025, vide order dated 22.01.2026 (copy of the order is annexed herewith as Annexure A-5) and further it appears that the case of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant is hereby allowed. 9. Let applicant, Pawan Kumar Miri, involved in Crime No. 145/2025, registered at Police Station Rajim District- Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(A) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 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. (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 5 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 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. 10. 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 Kunal