1 2026:CGHC:8808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1570 of 2026 Saimon Patrick Ronk S/o. Jonny Ronk Aged About 20 Years R/o. House No. 893 (Wrongly Noted 89o3 In Certified Copy), Surya Nagar, Sant Kabirdas Ward No. 03, P.S. - Gudhiyari, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Aazad Chowk, District - Raipur (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.02.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 78/2025 registered at Police Station- Aazad Chowk, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that information was received from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, regarding RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 investigation against various mule account holders by the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Range, District Raipur (C.G.). On the basis of the said information, it was found that offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita had been committed. Acting on the directions issued through the Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, the relevant data pertaining to cyber offences was reflected on the coordinated portal, which disclosed certain mule bank accounts being used for the purpose of cheating and wrongful gain. From the information procured through the said portal, it was revealed that a fraud amounting to Rs.24,86,762.13 had been committed through 21 bank accounts of Indian Overseas Bank, Samta Colony Branch, Raipur. On the basis of the aforesaid online complaint, Police Station Azad Chowk, District Raipur (C.G.), registered an FIR and initiated investigation, and upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed wherein it was found that Account No. 298401000003716 stood in the name of the present applicant and an amount of Rs.7,000/- had been deposited in the said account. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and she has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that similarly situated co- accused Kavita Machke has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 18637/2025 vide order dated 07.01.2026, and another co-accused, namely Sonu Vibhag, has also been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 3 13.01.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 410/2026, and the allegations levelled against the present applicant are similar in nature, and the applicant is also entitled to the benefit of bail on the ground of parity. He also submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and she is in jail since 26.03.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 26.03.2025, the fact that though the present applicant and other co-accused were committed online fraud, but other co- accused Kavita Machke has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 18637/2025 vide order dated 07.01.2026, and another co-accused, namely Sonu Vibhag, has also been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 13.01.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 410/2026, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet 4 has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant – Saimon Patrick Ronk, involved in Crime No. 78/2025 registered at Police Station- Aazad Chowk, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial 5 court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan