1 2026:CGHC:22375 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4429 of 2026 Vishal Tandi S/o Shri Mukesh Tandi Aged About 28 Years R/o. Qtr No. 01, Ward No. 31, Gandhi Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12/05/2026 1. Today, the matter is listed for consideration of the application for grant of regular bail preferred by the accused/applicant in connection with Crime No. 129/2025 registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of the BNS. 2. It is noted that the first bail application filed by the co-accused, namely Mohammad Aman being MCRC No. 4424/2026, arising out KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 of the same crime number and pertaining to the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was also listed today and has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2026, today itself. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to hear the present matter. 3. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2025 registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of the BNS. 4. The earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court being MCRC No. 1461/2026, vide order dated 10.02.2026 on merits. Hence, this second bail application. 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Government of India has established a Cyber Crime Reporting Portal for the prevention and reporting of cyber offences, through which victims can lodge complaints of cyber fraud. On the basis of information received through this system, it was revealed that a total of 128 bank accounts had been opened in the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Branch (IFSC Codes: MAHB0000439, MAHB0001928, MAHB0002335, MAHB0002400). These accounts were allegedly used for receiving amounts obtained through cyber fraud. Acting upon this information and as per the directions of the Police Headquarters, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur registered Crime No. 129/2025 under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) 3 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the account holders of the said 128 bank accounts. The investigation of the case was subsequently handed over to the Range Cyber Police Station, Raipur. These bank accounts have been identified as “mule accounts,” which were allegedly used by cyber criminals for transferring and routing the defrauded money and subsequently the accused persons were arrested. Hence, the bail application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court being MCRC No. 1461/2026, vide order dated 10.02.2026 on merits, hence this second bail application and the new ground for filing of the same is that the police have falsely implicated the applicant/accused in the present offence and no documentary evidence or any other evidence has been collected against the applicant/accused. He also submits that co-accused persons namely, Kamleshwar Mugri and Abdul Ghani Memon, have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2026 and 29.04.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3732/2026 and MCRC No. 3895/2026 on the ground of parity that the co-accused namely Shabbir Khan has been granted second bail by this Court in MCRC No. 2640/2026 vide order dated 23.03.2026. He further submits that one of the co-accused namely Avinash Tandekar has also been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 148/2026 vide order dated 08.01.2026 on the ground that the co-accused person Namely, Ishika Singh has granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 4 Criminal Appeal (SLP) No. 4494 of 2025 and subsequently other co-accused persons out of which one namely Krishna Ghodesawar was granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 902 of 2026 vide order dated 28.01.2026 on the ground of parity and the case of the present applicant is also similar to that of the co-accused persons therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that although the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to the co-accused, namely Ishika Singh, and thereafter, on the ground of parity, some of the other co-accused persons were also enlarged on regular bail by this Court, however, the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing. It is submitted that the bail applications of another co-accused, namely Sahil Jethwani, along with other co-accused persons including Abdul Gani Memon, arising out of the same crime number, were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a bunch of matters, the leading case being SLP (Crl.) No. 166/2026, wherein SLP (Crl.) No. 298/2026 preferred by Abdul Gani Memon was also included and the same came to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the aforesaid fact, that after rejection of his bail application by this Court, co-accused Abdul Gani Memon had preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was dismissed along with the bunch matters, has not been disclosed by the present applicant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the said SLPs, had directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order. Learned State counsel further 5 submits that the bail application of another co-accused, namely Mohammad Aman, bearing MCRC No. 4424/2026, arising out of the same crime number, was also listed before this Court today itself and the same has been rejected. Since the case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused Mohammad Aman, the present bail application also deserves to be rejected. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 9. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that after rejection of the first bail application of the co-accused persons including Harsh Soni and Abdul Gani Memon, they preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, bearing SLP (Crl.) No. 56/2026, SLP (Crl.) No. 298/2026 and other connected matters, which were heard together in a bunch of cases, the leading matter being Sahil Jethwani vs. State of Chhattisgarh in SLP (Crl.) No. 166/2026. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide common order dated 02.04.2026, rejected the bail applications of the said co-accused persons while directing the concerned trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of three months from the date of passing of the said order. It is pertinent to note that although the bail applications of the co-accused persons including Harsh Soni and Abdul Gani Memon had already been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present applicant sought parity on the basis of co-accused person who was enlarged on bail earlier, without disclosing the subsequent rejection of bail by the Hon’ble 6 Apex Court in respect of the aforesaid co-accused namely Abdul Gani Memon. 10. From perusal of the record, it clearly transpires that the present applicant has particularly sought parity with co-accused Abdul Gani Memon despite the fact that his bail application stood rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.04.2026. 11. During the course of hearing, on a pointed query being made by this Court to the learned counsel for the applicant as to why the material fact regarding rejection of bail application of co-accused Abdul Gani Memon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not disclosed while seeking parity, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that neither he was aware of the said fact nor had the deponent informed him regarding the same. However, this Court is unable to accept the aforesaid explanation for the reason that while invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of the BNSS, the applicant is under an obligation to approach the Court with complete candour and disclose all material facts relevant for adjudication of the bail application. Non-disclosure of such a vital fact, particularly regarding rejection of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the very co-accused on whose parity reliance has been placed, amounts to concealment of material facts and disentitles the applicant from claiming any equitable relief from this Court. 12.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the bail applications of the co-accused persons including Harsh Soni and Abdul Gani Memon have already 7 been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.04.2026 with a specific direction to the trial Court to expedite and conclude the trial within the stipulated period, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present bail application. Moreover, there is no substantial change in circumstances after rejection of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further considering the gravity and nature of allegations levelled against the present applicant and also the fact that this Court today itself has rejected the bail application of co-accused namely Mohammad Aman in MCRC No. 4424/2026, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the present bail application being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 13. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the present applicant- Vishal Tandi, involved in Crime No. 129/2025 registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected. 14. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 15. 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 Kunal