1 2026:CGHC:22374 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4424 of 2026 Mohammad Aman S/o Mohammad Sabir Aged About 24 Years R/o Khadan No. -04, Dondekala P.S. Vidhansabha, Distrirct Raipur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through -Police Station Civil Line District Raipur C.G. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12/05/2026 1. Today, the matter is listed for consideration of the application for grant of regular bail preferred by the accused/applicant in connection with Crime No. 129/2025 registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of the BNS. 2. It is noted that the second bail application filed by the co-accused, namely Vishal Tandi bearing MCRC No. 4429/2026, arising out of the same crime number and pertaining to the offences punishable KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was also listed today and has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2026. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to hear the present matter. 3. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik 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 Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of the BNS. 4. As per the prosecution case, during the course of investigation, it was discovered that a bank account bearing Account No. 60497230521 in the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Branch (IFSC: MAHB0002335) was opened in the name of the applicant, Mohammad Aman, and was linked to his registered mobile number 7869630667. The prosecution alleges that a huge amount of Rs. 1,27,32,911/- was deposited into the said bank account. It is further alleged that the applicant, in connivance with other co-accused persons, committed cyber fraud and facilitated the transfer of stolen property amounting to Rs. 64,10,855/- through multiple bank accounts. Additionally, a specific financial transaction of Rs. 32,249/- dated 30.08.2024 has been directly linked to an online cyber fraud complaint lodged by victims Nitin Kailas Naik and two others on the Cyber Crime Portal vide Acknowledgment No. 21909240094389. Thereafter, a notice under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was issued to the 3 applicant, directing him to furnish valid documents or licences in support of the aforesaid financial transactions. However, according to the investigating agency, the applicant failed to produce any valid documents and did not cooperate properly with the investigation, leading to a prima facie conclusion that he was actively involved as a member of an organized crime syndicate engaged in cyber fraud activities. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the FIR came to be lodged. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no documentary evidence or any other evidence has been collected against the applicant/accused. He also submits that co-accused persons namely, Ashish Kalwani and Krishna Ghodesawar, have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2026 and 28.01.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 497/2026 and MCRC No. 902/2026 on the ground of parity that the co-accused namely Avinash Tandekar has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 148/2026 vide order dated 08.01.2026, on the ground that the co-accused person Namely, Ishika Singh has granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal (SLP) No. 4494 of 2025 and subsequently other co-accused persons were also granted bail by this Court on the ground of parity and the case of the present applicant is also similar to that of the co- accused persons. He further submits that so far as the status of the trial is concerned, the statement of only Investigating OfÏcer is left to be recorded which is scheduled on 18.05.2025 and therefore, he 4 prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 6. 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, were rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a bunch case being SLP (Crl) No. 166/2026. Furthermore, the bail application of the co-accused namely Vishal Tandi being MCRC No. 4429/2026 was listed today, with same crime number has also been rejected by this Court today itself and the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused Vishal Tandi. Therefore, the bail application of the present applicant is also liable to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel 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 co-accused Harsh Soni and others, he preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court, bearing SLP (Crl.) No. 56/2026, 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, while rejecting the bail applications directed the concerned trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a 5 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 co-accused Harsh Soni along with others, this material fact was concealed by the co-accused 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 bail application of the co-accused Harsh Soni, was specifically rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.04.2026. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the bail application of the co-accused namley Harsh Soni along with other co-accused, have 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 entertain the present bail application. 10. Moreover, the applicant has sought to claim parity with certain co- accused persons while concealing the material fact of rejection of co-accused’s bail application by the Supreme Court, which disentitles him from seeking such relief and so far as the status of the trial is concerned, the statement of only Investigating OfÏcer is left to be recorded which is scheduled on 18.05.2025, 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, furthermore, today itself this Court has rejected the 6 bail application of the co-accused namely Vishal Tandi in MCRC No. 4429/2026, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the present applicant. 11. Accordingly, the bail application of the present applicant- Mohammad Aman, involved in Crime No. 129/2025 registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected. 12. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 13. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal