1 2026:CGHC:10554 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1532 of 2026 Aryan Namdeo S/o Rakesh Namdeo Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 21 Sai Nagar, Dongargarh Tehsil & District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.02.2026 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 360/2025, registered at Police Station- Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4) and 317(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 7692/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2025 on merits. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, operating under the Ministry of Home Affairs, has launched the Coordination Portal to assist law enforcement agencies in collecting and recording information relating to cybercrimes, particularly for tracing bank accounts used to intercept, transact, store, or disburse proceeds derived from cyber frauds. Pursuant to instructions issued by the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, vide letter dated 31.05.2025 bearing No. P/Raj/Saath Cell/530-D/2025, and subsequent communication received from the Police Headquarters, details of 56 suspected mule accounts along with registered mobile numbers (Leeper-1) were shared, out of which 21 accounts were found to be operated in Bandhan Bank, Branch Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon. Accordingly, Police Station Dongargarh issued letter dated 04.06.2025 (No. Police/Station/Dongargarh/1527/2025) to the said bank seeking KYC details and statements as on the date of the incident in respect of the identified 21 mule accounts. As per the information furnished by the bank, various amounts were credited into these accounts between January 2024 and May 2025, including deposits ranging from Rs. 999/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- in different accounts on different dates, and cumulatively a total sum of Rs. 10,06,544/- was deposited across all 21 accounts. Taking cognizance of the said transactions, prima facie action has been initiated against the concerned account holders under Sections 317(2) and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the crime has been registered and is presently under investigation. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application, earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 7692/2025 was rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 11.12.2025 on merits. He further submits that the applicant has been in jail since 19.07.2025 and has, therefore, undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly seven months by the time this bail application is being considered. It is further submitted that, out of the five prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court. It is also submitted that the co-accused, namely Sachin Meshram, from whose facilitated transaction an amount of Rs. 40,000/- is stated to have been transacted, as reflected in the afÏdavit filed by the Investigating OfÏcer, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 10391/2025 vide order dated 05.02.2026. In the case of the present applicant, the alleged amount involved is only Rs. 1,898/-, as is evident from the afÏdavit of the Investigating OfÏcer. Therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that this is the applicant’s second bail application and that the earlier application, MCRC No. 7692/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2025 on merits, further considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 19.07.2025 and has thus undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly seven months, further the co-accused, namely Sachin Meshram, from whose facilitated transaction an amount of Rs. 40,000/- is stated to have been transacted, as reflected in the afÏdavit filed by the Investigating OfÏcer, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 10391/2025 vide order dated 05.02.2026 and in the case of the present applicant, the alleged amount involved is only Rs. 1,898/-, as is evident from the afÏdavit of the Investigating OfÏcer, hence this Court is of the considered view that, on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Aryan Namdeo, involved in Crime No. 360/2025, registered at Police Station- Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4) and 317(5) of Bhartiya Nyay 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 5 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 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. 9. 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