1 2026:CGHC:7847 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1518 of 2026 Harish Sahu S/o Pradeep Kumar Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No 4, Bhatapara, Chhata, Police Station Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mohammad Afroz Athar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12/02/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who 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 the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that FIR No. 145/2025 was registered under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(a) and 3(5) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 of the B.N.S. against the holders of seven bank accounts, (along with other accounts mentioned in the FIR). It has been alleged that during the period from 30.05.2024 to 17.03.2025, from different States of the country, a total transaction amounting to Rs. 4,16,96,238/- (Rupees Four Crore Sixteen Lakh Ninety-Six Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Eight) was carried out through these alleged “mule” bank accounts, and that the said amount was obtained by way of cheating and online fraud. After registration of the FIR, the present applicant, who is the holder of Account No. 60489895543 (which is not mentioned in the FIR), was arrested on 18.05.2025 on the allegation that the applicant, who works as a driver by profession, had met co-accused Karan Yadav and requested him to inform the applicant if any job opportunity was available. It is alleged that co-accused Karan Yadav told the applicant that he would pay him Rs. 5,000/- if he provided a mobile SIM card and a bank account. Thereafter, it is alleged that the applicant provided his own bank account and SIM card and also arranged bank accounts of his friends and relatives. It is further alleged that the applicant received Rs. 5,000/- per account, out of which he paid Rs. 3,000/- to the respective account holders and retained Rs. 2,000/- for himself. It is also alleged that the applicant received approximately Rs. 30,000/- in total from co-accused Karan Yadav. During the course of investigation, it was found that a sum of Rs. 44,81,833/- (Rupees Forty-Four Lakh Eighty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Three) was credited to the bank account of the present applicant. Based upon such, aforementioned offences 3 were registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the bail application of co-accused Mohnish Kumar Tandiya was earlier rejected by this Court, however, he preferred SLP (Crl.) No. 18750/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 22.01.2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been granted bail to him. It is also submitted that another similarly situated co-accused, namely Pawan Kumar Miri, has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 985/2026, vide order dated 29.01.2026. The applicant is in judicial custody since 18.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, on the ground of parity and prolonged detention, the applicant prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, appearing for the State/non-applicant, submit that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the trial is currently in progress. He further concur with the submission made on behalf of the applicant to the effect that the principle of parity may be considered, however, he contend that the serious nature of the offences, the ongoing investigation and the possibility of influencing witnesses weigh against granting bail to the applicant at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the bail application of co-accused Mohnish Kumar Tandiya was earlier 4 rejected by this Court, however, he preferred SLP (Crl.) No. 18750/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 22.01.2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been granted bail to him and further considerin the fact that another similarly situated co-accused, namely Pawan Kumar Miri, has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 985/2026, vide order dated 29.01.2026 and the applicant is in judicial custody since 18.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Harish Sahu, 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 the BNS., 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 5 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. (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 for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal