1 2026:CGHC:22890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4521 of 2026 1 - Anil Kumar S/o Late Prabhati Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o A-102, Hyatt Enclave Loni Dehat D.L.F., Ankur Vihar, District Ghaziabad U.P. (District Name Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order) (Age Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) 2 - Rinku Singh S/o Late Kartar Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Rasulpur, Rithori, Thana - Tola Chowki, Tahsil Sikandarabad, District Bulandsheher U.P. (Age Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) 3 - Jitendra Kumar Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Rasulpur, Rithori, Thana - Tola Chowki, Tahsil Sikandarabad, District Bulandsheher U.P. (Age Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali, Mahilang, Deputy Government Advocate. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 24/2026 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 66 (d) of the I.T. Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, the complainant submitted an application to DBT Bank for withdrawal of the maturity amount of an insurance fixed deposit. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused persons had defrauded the complainant by inducing him, on the false pretext of releasing the maturity amount of the policy, to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,60,000/- into various bank accounts in the name of completing necessary formalities. It is alleged that calls were made to the complainant's phone number, whereby he was deceived into transferring the said amount to different bank accounts. Consequently, upon investigation, a case was registered against the accused persons under Section 318(4) of the BNS and Section 66(d) of the IT Act. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants 3 have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that bail application of identically situated co-accused, namely, Ajay Tiwarik has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2026 in MCRC No.3321 of 2026 on the ground that the accused persons have returned the money to the complainant, and the complainant has filed an affidavit expressing no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant and in the present case also the complainant has no objection, if the applicants are granted bail. The applicants are in jail since 21.03.2026, the applicants have no criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that he along with other co- accused persons, allegedly induced the complainant on the false pretext of releasing the maturity amount of an insurance policy and thereby dishonestly obtained a sum of Rs. 9,60,000/- from the complainant by making him transfer the amount into different bank accounts through fraudulent telephonic representations. However could not dispute the fact that identically situated co-accused, namely, Ajay Tiwarik has already been granted bail by this Court on the ground that the accused persons have returned the money to the complainant, and the complainant has filed an affidavit 4 expressing no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant and in the present case also the complainant has no objection, if the applicants are granted bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants since 21.03.2026, the fact that though the applicants along with other co-accused persons allegedly induced the complainant on the false pretext of releasing the maturity amount of an insurance policy and thereby dishonestly obtained a sum of Rs. 9,60,000/- from the complainant by making him transfer the amount into different bank accounts through fraudulent telephonic representations, but considering the fact that identically situated co-accused, namely, Ajay Tiwarik has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2026 in MCRC No.3321 of 2026 on the ground that the accused persons have returned the money to the complainant, and the complainant has filed an affidavit expressing no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant and in the present case also the complainant has no objection, if the applicants are granted bail, further considering the criminal antecedents of the applicants, applicant, namely, Rinku Singh and Jitendra Kumar Singh have only one criminal antecedent each against them, the charge-sheet has been filed, 5 this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicants-Anil Kumar, Rinku Singh and Jitendra Kumar Singh, involved in Crime No. 24/2026 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 66 (d) of the I.T. Act, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in 6 accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil