1 2026:CGHC:22371 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4405 of 2026 Harsh Soni S/o- Bhupendra Soni Aged About 28 Years R/o- J-28, Rajiv Aavas, B/h, Lalganga Shopping Mall, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) -- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Civil Line, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Non-applicant MCRC No. 4416 of 2026 Sanjay Jaswani S/o Nandiram Jaswani Aged About 46 Years R/o Solas Heights, Block M.B. Floor 104, Amlidih Police Station, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant MCRC No. 4411 of 2026 Nikhil Chawala S/o Kishore Chawla Aged About 33 Years R/o A-204 Cross Road Apartment, Amladih Raipur District Raipur (C.G. --- Applicant ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.05.15 14:06:37 +0530 2 Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Civil Line, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Arun Kukreja, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.05.2026 1. Since the above bail applications arise out of the same crime number and relate to the same offence, they are being heard and decided by this common order. As the facts of the cases are identical, for the sake of convenience, MCRC No. 4405 of 2026 is being treated as the lead case. 2. The applicants have preferred these Second Bail Applications under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station Civil Line, 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. 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. On the basis of the information received through the said system, it came to light that a total of 128 bank accounts were opened in Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Branch (IFSC Codes: MAHB0001928, MAHB0002335, and MAHB0002400), and the said accounts were allegedly used for receiving money obtained through cyber fraud. On the basis of the said information, and in compliance with the directions 3 issued by 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the holders of the aforesaid 128 bank accounts. Thereafter, the matter was handed over to Range Cyber Police Station, Raipur, for investigation. The said bank accounts have been identified as mule accounts, which were allegedly used by cyber criminals for transferring and receiving the amounts obtained through fraudulent activities. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the Investigating OfÏcer 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. 13678/2025 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 4 co-accused persons therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 5. 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, the bail application of another co-accused, namely Sahil Jethwani, along with other co-accused persons, was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a bunch case being SLP (Crl) No. 166/2026. Therefore, the bail application of the present applicant is also liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that after the rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, namely, Harsh Soni, Sanjay Jaswani and Nikhil Chawla had preferred Special Leave Petitions being SLP (Crl) No. 56/2026, SLP (Crl) No. 20175/2025 and SLP (Crl) No. 19861/2025 which were 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 while dismissing the SLPs directed the trial Court concerned to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of three months from the date of passing of the said order. 8. It is evident that although the Hon’ble Supreme Court had rejected the bail application of the present applicant(s), this material fact was concealed by the applicant(s) while claiming parity with another co- accused, namely Jayant Ghosh, who was granted bail by this Court 5 solely on the ground that another co-accused, namely, Ishika Singh had been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.10.2025. However, subsequently, the applicants’ bail application was specifically rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.04.2026, as aforesaid. 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 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 submitted that he was not aware of the said order passed by 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 and 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 applicants 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, this Court is not inclined to 6 entertain the present bail applications and insofar as the status of the trial is concerned, the statement of only Investigating OfÏcer 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 applicants have sought to claim parity with certain co-accused persons while concealing the material fact of rejection of their bail applications by the Supreme Court, which disentitle them 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 applicants. 11. In view of above, the bail applications of the applicants namely - Harsh Soni in MCRC No. 4405 of 2026, Nikhil Chawala in MCRC No. 4411 of 2026 and Sanjay Jaswani in MCRC No. 4416 of 2026, involved in Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station Civil Line, 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, are rejected. 12. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek