1 2026:CGHC:22894 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4508 of 2026 Sahil Jethwani S/o. Ashok Jethwani Aged About 22 Years R/o. Telibandha, Police Station- Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Cyber Cell Headquarter, Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aakash Aahuja, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.05.2026 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- Cyber Cell Headquarter, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(3) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 4906/2025, vide order dated 26.06.2025, on merits. Hence this Second bail application. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant lodged a complaint at the concerned police station, alleging inter alia that certain amounts Rs.7,000/-, Rs.7,500/-, Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 10,000/-, and Rs. 95,000/- were illegally transferred from his bank account to the applicant's account in multiple installments, as reflected in the bank statement. Based on the said complaint, the police registered an FIR against the applicant for the offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the investigating agency has wrongly implicated the applicant/accused in the alleged offence despite there being no cogent material connecting him with the crime in question. Learned counsel further submits that similarly situated co- accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this regard, it is submitted that co-accused namely, Jayant Ghosh, has 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. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had earlier granted bail to co-accused Ishika Singh in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4494 of 2025 and thereafter, on the basis of parity, other co-accused persons namely Avinash Tandekar and Krishna Ghodesawar were also enlarged on bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 148/2026 and M.Cr.C. No. 902/2026 vide orders dated 08.01.2026 3 and 28.01.2026 respectively. He submits that the role attributed to the present applicant is similar to that of the aforesaid co-accused persons and therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel fairly submits that after rejection of the first bail application of the present applicant, he had preferred Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 166/2026 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court along with a bunch of connected matters. However, after considering the matter, the Hon’ble Apex Court rejected the bail applications of all the accused persons including the present applicant, while directing the concerned trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail considering the serious nature and gravity of allegations levelled against him. It is submitted that the applicant is an active participant in the commission of the offence and there is sufÏcient material available on record which prima facie establishes his involvement and complicity in the crime in question. Learned State counsel further submits that the present case pertains to a serious and well-planned criminal act and during the course of investigation, material evidence has been collected against the applicant including memorandum statements of co-accused persons, seizure proceedings and statements of prosecution 4 witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C./BNSS. Learned State counsel further submits that merely because certain co- accused persons have been granted bail either by this Court or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present applicant cannot claim bail as a matter of right on the ground of parity. It is submitted that the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing and parity cannot be claimed in a mechanical manner without considering the specific role, conduct and other attending circumstances pertaining to the applicant. It is further submitted that while granting bail to certain co-accused persons, the Courts had considered their individual role and peculiar facts and circumstances applicable to them, whereas the present applicant’s case is distinguishable on facts and therefore the principle of parity would not be applicable in his favour. 6. Learned State counsel also submits that after rejection of the first bail application of the present applicant by this Court, the applicant had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 166/2026 along with other connected matters and after considering the entire material available on record, the Hon’ble Apex Court was not inclined to grant bail to any of the accused persons including the present applicant and accordingly rejected their bail applications while directing the trial Court to conclude the trial within a stipulated period of three months. It is submitted that once the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself has declined to enlarge the applicant on bail on merits, no substantial change in circumstances has been shown thereafter so as to warrant reconsideration of the present bail 5 application. She further submits that the trial is already in progress and the matter is proceeding expeditiously pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, at this stage, interference by granting bail to the applicant would not be proper, particularly when the allegations against him are grave in nature and supported by material collected during investigation. It is thus submitted that considering the seriousness of the allegations, the role attributed to the present applicant, the material available on record and the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already rejected the bail application of the applicant on merits, no case for grant of bail is made out in favour of the present applicant. Accordingly, she prays for rejection of the bail application. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the present applicant, the material collected during the course of investigation and the overall evidence available on record, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The record reveals prima facie involvement and complicity of the present applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. The statements of prosecution witnesses, memorandum statements of accused persons, seizure proceedings and other material collected by the prosecution prima facie indicate active participation of the applicant in the crime in question. 9. This Court has also considered the submission advanced by 6 learned counsel for the applicant regarding parity with other co- accused persons who have been granted bail. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that co-accused Jayant Ghosh was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3319/2026. Similarly, co-accused Avinash Tandekar and Krishna Ghodesawar were enlarged on bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 148/2026 and M.Cr.C. No. 902/2026 vide orders dated 08.01.2026 and 28.01.2026 respectively, on the ground of parity with co- accused Ishika Singh, who had been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4494 of 2025. However, this Court is of the view that parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the case of each accused is required to be considered on its own facts, role attributed to him and other attending circumstances. Merely because certain co- accused persons have been enlarged on bail would not automatically entitle the present applicant to claim the same relief. 10. It is also significant to note that after rejection of the first bail application of the present applicant by this Court, the applicant had preferred SLP (Crl.) No. 166/2026 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court along with a bunch of connected matters and the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering the matter on merits, was not inclined to grant bail to the accused persons including the present applicant and accordingly rejected the same while directing the concerned trial Court to conclude the trial within a stipulated period. Since the rejection of the bail application by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no substantial change in circumstances has been brought to the notice 7 of this Court so as to take a different view in the matter and so far trial is in progress. 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 on 13.05.2026, rejected the second bail applications of the co-accused persons who claims parity. 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 – Sahil Jethwani, involved in Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station- Cyber Cell Headquarter, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(3) 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal