1 2026:CGHC:7846 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1467 of 2026 Sakib S/o Jahid Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Melaoo Raipura, Police Station- Ijjatnagar, District- Bareli (U.P.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Deputy G.A. 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. 176/2024 registered at Police Station– Basantpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(6) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 66(C) & 66(D) of the I.T. Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 10.10.2024 at about 12:36 p.m., the complainant received a video call on mobile number 9926713435 from mobile number 923478774588, wherein the caller impersonated himself as an अधिEकारी from the CBI Crime RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Police, Dehradun, and falsely informed the complainant that his son had been trapped in a rape case and that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was required to be paid immediately to the concerned IG for securing his release, failing which a criminal case would be registered and his son would be sent to jail. It is further alleged that during the call, the sound of a child crying and being beaten was played to create fear, due to which the complainant was deceived and transferred Rs.25,000/- from mobile number 7983451949 and Rs.20,000/- from mobile number 7304992446 in the name of a lawyer. Thereafter, the complainant lodged an FIR against unknown persons, and during the course of investigation, the present applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 176/2024, though the FIR is not available on the ofÏcial website as the case has been marked sensitive, and a copy supplied to the deponent bears number 00/2024. Hence, the present application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that though the bail applications of two similarly placed co- accused persons, namely Rizwan Ahmed and Rifakat, were rejected by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC Nos. 4218/2025 and 5696/2025 vide orders dated 30.06.2025 and 21.07.2025 respectively, the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing, as he has been in jail since 25.03.2025 and the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that out of 13 prosecution witnesses, five witnesses have already been examined by the trial Court, and the complainant as 3 well as the complainant’s wife have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. He also submits that in a separate case registered against the applicant in District Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, he has already been granted bail, and since the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, the applicant deserves to be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is prima facie involved in a serious offence of cheating and impersonation, wherein the complainant was deceived through a video call by falsely projecting himself as an अधिEकारी of CBI Crime Police, Dehradun, and induced to transfer money on the pretext of securing the release of his son in a fabricated criminal case. He also submits that bail application of the other co-accused persons, namely Rizwan Ahmed and Rifakat, were rejected by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC Nos. 4218/2025 and 5696/2025 vide orders dated 30.06.2025 and 21.07.2025 respectively, and as such, the applicant is also not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations that though the out of 13 prosecution witnesses, five witnesses have already been examined by the trial Court, and the complainant as well as the complainant’s wife have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case, but the 4 material collected during investigation showing the applicant’s prima facie involvement in a serious offence of cheating and impersonation wherein the complainant was deceived through a video call by falsely posing as an ofÏcer of CBI Crime Police, Dehradun, and induced to transfer money on the pretext of securing the release of his son in a fabricated criminal case. Further the fact that the bail applications of similarly placed co-accused persons, namely Rizwan Ahmed and Rifakat, have already been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 30.06.2025 and 21.07.2025. In view of the gravity of the offence, its societal impact, as such, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Sakib, involved in Crime No. 176/2024 registered at Police Station– Basantpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(6) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 66(C) & 66(D) of the I.T. Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce 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 Rahul Dewangan