1 2026:CGHC:8803 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1622 of 2026 Kishore Chhabda S/o Late Gopal Das Chhabda Aged About 49 Years R/o House No. 34, 237, Kanwar Ram Chowk, Byron Bazar, Katora, Talab, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilog, 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 case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that information was received through the cyber crime reporting portal that certain bank RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 accounts had been fraudulently opened in Finance Bank, Civil Lines Branch, Raipur, and were being used for receiving the proceeds of cyber fraud, whereby the accused persons allegedly embezzled an amount of ₹64,10,855/-. Acting upon the directions issued by the Police Headquarters, a report regarding the said incident was forwarded to Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, where an FIR was registered against several account holders, including the present applicant, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the entire allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated, inasmuch as the applicant has neither transferred nor fraudulently received any amount in his bank account and has played no role in the commission of the alleged offence. She also submits that the implication of the applicant is based merely on suspicion, without any sufÏcient reason or material available on record. It is also contended that there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the prosecution case, nor has the prosecution produced any material regarding the alleged amount or the transactions in question, and there is no evidence to show that the applicant received or misappropriated any such amount. It is further submitted that the applicant has neither cheated nor defrauded the complainant and has not 3 committed any of the alleged offences, and he has been wrongly arrested by the police on the basis of false and baseless allegations. She also submits that the applicant is in jail since 16.06.2025, the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, she 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 information received through the cyber crime reporting portal revealed that certain bank accounts had been fraudulently opened in Finance Bank, Civil Lines Branch, Raipur, and were being used for receiving the proceeds of cyber fraud, resulting in embezzlement of Rs.64,10,855/-. Acting on the directions of the Police Headquarters, an FIR was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, against several account holders, including the present applicant, for the said offences. She further submits that the bail applications of several 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, 10207/2025. Although the 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, the role attributed to the present applicant is distinct and more serious. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the material available on record, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 4 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, and the material available on record showing that fraudulent bank accounts were used for siphoning an amount of Rs.64,10,855/- in connection with cyber fraud. 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 account, the case of the present applicant stands on a different and distinguishable footing in view of the specific allegations and his alleged involvement in the fraudulent banking transactions. Moreover, 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, 9652/2025, and 10207/2025, which also weighs against the grant of bail to the present applicant. In view of the seriousness of the offence, the magnitude of the alleged fraud, and the role attributed to the applicant, 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 – Kishore Chhabda, 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. 5 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