1 2026:CGHC:22588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4465 of 2026 Bharat Parihaar S/o Heera Parihaar Aged About 31 Years Resident- Makan No. 02, 231, Shiv Mandir Ke Samne, Lalpur, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Civil Line Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Arun Kukreja, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station- Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 9054/2025, vide order dated 15.12.2025, on merits. Hence this Second bail application. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Government of India has established a Cyber Crime Reporting Portal for the prevention of cyber crimes, through which victims can report incidents of cyber fraud. Based PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.05.15 17:53:15 +0530 2 on the information received through this system, it came to light that a total of 128 bank accounts had been opened in the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Branch (IFSC Codes: MAHB0000439, MAHB0001928, MAHB0002335, MAHB0002400), which were allegedly used for receiving money obtained through cyber fraud. On the basis of this information, and pursuant to the directions of the Police Headquarters, Civil Lines Police Station, Raipur registered Crime No. 129/2025 under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 against the holders of the said 128 bank accounts. The matter was thereafter transferred to the Range Cyber Police Station, Raipur for investigation. These bank accounts were identified as “mule accounts,” which were allegedly used by cyber criminals for transferring and routing amounts obtained through fraudulent activities. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the Investigating Officer forcibly obtained the signatures of the applicant/accused on the memorandum statements. The applicant/accused has no connection whatsoever with the persons named in the said memorandum, nor does he know them. The police have falsely implicated the applicant/accused in the present offence. He submits that in the present case, the only material collected against the applicant/accused is the memorandum statement and apart from the same, no documentary evidence or any other evidence has been collected against the applicant/accused. He also submits that co-accused person namely, Jayant Ghosh, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3319/2026 on the ground of parity that the co-accused person Namely, Ishika Singh has granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal (SLP) No. 3 4494 of 2025 and subsequently other co-accused persons namely, Avinash Tandekar and Krishna Ghodesawar were granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 148 of 2026 and MCRC No. 902 of 2026 vide orders dated 08.01.2026 and 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. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to one of the co-accused persons namely Ishika Singh, and thereafter, on the ground of parity, certain 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 the present applicant along with other co-accused persons, including co-accused Sahil Jethwani, were considered and rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a batch of matters arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.166/2026 and connected cases. It is further submitted that the present applicant, namely Bharat Parihar, whose first bail application had already been rejected by this Court, thereafter approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No.1630/2026, which was also heard along with the connected batch matters and came to be rejected vide order dated 02.04.2026. Learned State counsel further submitted that while rejecting the said petitions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of three months. 6. Learned State counsel further submits that the aforesaid material fact regarding rejection of the applicant’s Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Apex Court has not been fairly disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the present bail application. Therefore, in 4 view of the rejection of the applicant’s bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on merits and the specific direction issued for early conclusion of trial, the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that after the rejection of the first bail application of the present applicant, he preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court, bearing SLP (Crl.) No. 1630/2026, which was heard along with the cases of other co-accused persons in a bunch of matters, the leading case being Sahil Jethwani vs. State of Chhattisgarh in SLP (Crl.) No. 166 of 2026. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 02.04.2026, rejected the bail applications 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 evident that although the Hon’ble Supreme Court had rejected the bail application of the present applicant, this material fact was concealed by the applicant while claiming parity with another co-accused, namely Jayant Ghosh, who was granted bail by this Court solely on the ground that co-accused Ishika Singh had been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.10.2025. However, subsequently, the applicant’s bail application was specifically rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.04.2026. 9. 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 the applicant’s bail application by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1630/2026, decided along with bunch of connected matters vide order dated 02.04.2026, was not disclosed while seeking parity before this Court, learned counsel for the applicant 5 submitted that he was neither aware nor the same was disclosed by the deponent of the present case to him regarding the filing of the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and tendered unconditional apology before this Court. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the said explanation inasmuch as the applicant had earlier approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order rejecting his bail application was a material and relevant fact, which ought to have been specifically disclosed before this Court while pressing the present bail application on the ground of parity. Non-disclosure of such material fact amounts to suppression of fact nd has the effect of misleading the Court while seeking discretionary relief under Section 483 of BNSS. It is well settled that a litigant who approaches the Court must come with clean hands and disclose all material facts relevant for adjudication of the matter. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the bail application of the present applicant has already 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 and so far as the status of the trial is concerned, the statement of only Investigating Officer is left to be recorded and the next date fixed for recording of evidence i.e. 18.05.2026, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present bail application. Moreover, the applicant has sought to claim parity with certain co-accused persons while concealing the material fact of rejection of his bail application by the Supreme Court, which disentitles him from seeking such relief. In view of the rejection of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the absence of any substantial change in circumstances and considering the gravity of the allegations, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the present applicant. 6 11. It is also pertinent to note that in another similar matter arising out of the same crime number i.e. 129/2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Range, Raipur, this Court has today itself, i.e., on 13.05.2026, rejected the second bail applications of the co-accused persons. Therefore, on the ground of consistency as well, no case for grant of bail is made out in favour of the present applicant. It is further noteworthy that the second bail applications of other co-accused persons, namely Harsh Soni, Sanjay Jaswani and Nikhil Chawla, which were listed on 12.05.2026, have also been rejected by this Court on the same day being MCRC Nos. 4405/2026, 4416/2026 and 4411/2026 respectively. 12. In view of above, the bail application of the applicant namely – Bharat Parihaar, involved in Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station- Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 13. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 14. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti