1 2026:CGHC:8831 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1732 of 2026 Md. Majid S/o Khalil Aged About 40 Years R/o Kuraishi Mohalla Lal Tanki Chowk, P.S. Paijam Park Madi Asansol, District- Vardhamn (W.B.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Chakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.02.2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.58/2025, registered at Police Station – Chakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(2) (B) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in MCRC No. 3989/2025. 3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, the complainant lodged a report before the concerned police station alleging that, on the date of the incident, he, along with several investors, deposited a total sum of PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.20 17:03:48 +0530 2 B1,52,50,000/- in various banks situated within Raigarh District. The said amount was deposited into a joint account on the assurance allegedly given by the accused persons. It is alleged that the accused thereafter failed to disburse the said amount to the intended beneficiaries, thereby committing criminal breach of trust and misappropriation. Acting upon the complaint, the police registered an offence under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the present applicant was arrested solely on the basis of a memorandum statement. 4. It is respectfully submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in MCRC No. 3989/2025. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the present applicant on the ground that the applicant has been in jail since 11.03.2025 and, out of 10 prosecution witnesses, the statements of 07 witnesses have been recorded and have not supported the prosecution case in any manner. Crucially, PW-05 Kaiyum Khan and PW-06 Wasim Raja, who are memorandum, identifying, and seizure witnesses, have resiled from their earlier statements and have not supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the statement of the Investigating Officer (IO) has been recorded before the trial Court, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, and the charge sheet has already been filed. Hence, he prays that the applicant be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on the ground that it is well organized nature of the 3 cyber fraud, the extensive financial loss suffered by the victims, and the specific roles attributed to the applicant. Therefore, the present bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations made against the applicant, and the fact that this is the second bail application filed by the applicant, although the first bail application was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in MCRC No. 3989/2025, a new ground has now arisen in that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 11.03.2025, further, out of 10 prosecution witnesses, 07 witnesses have been examined, and the statement of the Investigating Officer (IO) has been recorded before the trial Court, however, considering the well-organized nature of the cyber fraud, the extensive financial loss suffered by the victims, and the specific roles attributed to the applicant, and further considering that the trial is at the verge of completion, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant - Md. Majid involved in Crime No.58/2025, registered at Police Station – Chakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(2)(B) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected at this stage. 9. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 4 10. 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 Preeti