1 2026:CGHC:1188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 148 of 2026 Avinash Tandekar S/o Prahlad Tandekar Aged About 30 Years R/o Badi, Bhawani, Nagar, Kota Nagar, Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Civil Line, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Arun Kukreja, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.01.2026 1. This is the first 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. 129/2025, registered at Police Station – Civil Line, Raipur District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of the BNS. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 12:50:32 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution is that, for prevention of cyber crime, the Government of India has established a Cyber Crime Reporting Portal through which victims can report incidents of cyber fraud. On the basis of information received through this portal, it came to light that as many as 128 bank accounts opened in different branches of Bank of Maharashtra at Raipur (IFSC Codes: MAHB0000439, MAHB0001928, MAHB0002335 and MAHB0002400) were being used to receive proceeds of cyber fraud. Acting upon the said 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) of the BNS. Subsequently, a case was registered against the holders of the said 128 bank accounts, treating them as “mule accounts”, and the matter was transferred to the Cyber Crime Police Station, Raipur for further investigation, as it was alleged that these accounts were being used by cyber criminals for routing and transferring fraudulent funds. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that in the present case as a result of a deliberate conspiracy, as he has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence and has been in custody since 26.03.2025; notably, in Criminal Appeal (SLP) No. 4494/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already granted regular bail to similarly placed co-accused Ishika Singh and another person, thereby entitling the applicant to the benefit of parity; the applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family and his continued incarceration has caused severe hardship to his 3 dependents; moreover, the applicant had only submitted his documents, photograph and mobile number to the bank for obtaining a loan, but no loan was sanctioned and, without his knowledge or consent, a bank official allegedly opened a fake account in his name using another person’s mobile number, which the applicant neither operated nor had any knowledge of; further, no bank account or passbook has been seized from the applicant and he was allegedly compelled by the police to sign the memorandum, thus clearly showing that he has been falsely roped in and deserves the benefit of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case and that the applicant has committed fraud; therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 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 in view of the fact that in SLP No. 13678/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 13.10.2025, has already granted bail to the similarly placed co- accused Ishika Singh, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. Further, taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 26.03.2025, and considering that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the 4 considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail. 7. Let applicant, Avinash Tandekar, involved in Crime No.129/2025, registered at Police Station – Civil Line, Raipur District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 sufficient 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 her, 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 5 of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/-d/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav