1 2026:CGHC:8901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1538 of 2026 Shubham Kori S/o Shubash Kori Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Semartal, P.O.- Semartal, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.02.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2025 registered at Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4,) 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that pursuant to a complaint dated 23.03.2025 relating to the period from 01.01.2024 to 11.01.2025, Crime No. 129/2025 was registered for offences punishable under RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against several bank account holders and promoters of Bank of Maharashtra, Telibandha Branch, Raipur. According to the charge-sheet, the applicant was arrested on 27.03.2025 at about 9:00 PM, and prior thereto, at about 8:40 PM, his memorandum statement was recorded under Section 23(2) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is alleged that on 06.08.2024 the applicant opened Bank Account No. 60501024196 at the said branch using his mobile number, while another mobile number was registered for receiving OTPs, and that the account was opened at the instance of Kamal Dis Lahare and Abdullah Memon, who allegedly promised monetary consideration. The prosecution further alleges that the applicant handed over the bank account kit for use in online financial transactions and received ₹2,000/- each from the said persons for opening the account. The applicant, however, maintains that he has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the bail application of the present applicant was dismissed by the learned Court below vide order dated 28.11.2025; hence, being aggrieved by the said rejection and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present bail application is being filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case, and there is no evidence on record to suggest his involvement in the alleged crime in any manner. It is further submitted that the applicant has never been involved in any such activity as alleged and, even 3 assuming the prosecution story to be true, there is no material to establish any criminal intent or knowledge on his part regarding the alleged misuse of the bank account. The prosecution itself alleges receipt of only Rs.2,000/-, which shows that the applicant neither derived any substantial benefit nor acted as a key beneficiary or mastermind, and at most a minor and secondary role is attributed to him, limited to opening a bank account, while the principal allegations are against other accused persons. It is also submitted that this Hon’ble Court has granted bail in similar and identical matters involving analogous allegations, copies of which are annexed as Annexure A/3 (colly). He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 27.03.2025, the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. She also submits that as per the prosecution case, pursuant to the complaint dated 23.03.2025 relating to the period from 01.01.2024 to 11.01.2025, Crime No. 129/2025 has been registered for the said offences against several bank account holders and promoters of Bank of Maharashtra, Telibandha Branch, Raipur. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested on 27.03.2025 and is alleged to have opened the concerned bank account at the instance of other accused persons, handed over the account kit for use in online 4 financial transactions, and received monetary consideration, thereby disclosing his active involvement in the offence. She would further submit that the bail applications of other co-accused persons have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC Nos. 9564/2025, 8661/2025, 9209/2025, 8228/2025, 8633/2025, 9441/2025, 9330/2025, and 9652/2025. However, it is also submitted that co- accused person was granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that only a paltry sum of Rs.8,000/- had been credited into their accounts. Therefore, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the material available on record, the present applicant is not entitled to the benefit 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 nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the material available on record indicating the active involvement of the present applicant in opening and facilitating the use of the bank account for illegal online financial transactions. Further, though the co-accused person has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the limited ground that only a paltry sum of Rs.8,000/- had been credited into her accounts, the role attributed to the present applicant is distinguishable and stands on a different footing, inasmuch as specific allegations exist regarding opening of the bank account at the instance of other accused persons, handing over the account kit for misuse, and receipt of monetary 5 consideration. Furthermore, the bail applications of several other co-accused persons have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC Nos. 9564/2025, 8661/2025, 9209/2025, 8228/2025, 8633/2025, 9441/2025, 9330/2025, and 9652/2025, which also weighs against the present applicant. In view of the seriousness of the offence, the applicant’s alleged role, and the totality of the circumstances, 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 applicant – Shubham Kori, involved in Crime No. 129/2025 registered at Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4,) 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan