1 2026:CGHC:8842 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1688 of 2026 Mukesh Chaudhary S/o Shivbalak Chaudhary Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Aamadiha, Sakri Gali River Block, Tahsil-Taljhadi, District Sahebganj, (Jharkhand) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, P.S. City Kotwali, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.02.2026 1. This is the Second 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. 140/2025 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 5870 of 2025 was rejected by this Court on merits. 3. The prosecution case is that the complainant, namely Gourishankar ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.19 17:36:03 +0530 2 Beriwal, who is engaged in trading, lodged a written complaint on 04.04.2025 stating that some unknown person had fraudulently withdrawn money from his savings account between 30.10.2024 and 16.11.2024, amounting to a total of Rs. 17,16,552/-. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered at the concerned police station. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits. The second bail application of the applicant is being preferred on the grounds that the FIR does not disclose any specific overt act attributable to the present applicant, as nowhere in the FIR is it stated that the applicant himself withdrew the alleged amount from the bank account or personally operated the complainant’s account in any manner. He submits that there is no evidence available on record to show that the present applicants received any amount in their accounts from the complainant’s account. Hence, no prima facie case against the applicants is made out. He also submits that the FIR itself records that the complainant’s bank account neither had an ATM facility nor any online banking facility, however, the prosecution has failed to explain the exact modus operandi as to how such a huge amount was allegedly withdrawn, which renders the prosecution story inherently doubtful at the very threshold. No recovery of the alleged defrauded amount has been made from the present applicant, nor has any ATM card, cheque, passbook, or other banking instrument been seized from his possession, as is evident from the FIR and the case diary. He also submits that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, only one prosecution witness has been examined so far and the applicant is in judicial custody since 22.05.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail 3 application of the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court, no new ground has been raised by learned counsel for the applicant in the present bail application. The allegation against the applicant is that he fraudulently obtained a sum of Rs. 17,16,552/- from the complainant’s bank account through net banking and thereby committed fraud. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant – Mukesh Chaudhary, involved in Crime No. 140/2025 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. 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 Abhishek