1 2026:CGHC:23261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4589 of 2026 1 - Darshan Sehwag S/o Surendra Sehwag Aged About 26 Years R/o Village And Post Chuddani, Tehsil Bhaduragarh, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana. 2 - Sumit Sehwag S/o Jaibhagwan Sehwag Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post Chuddani, Tehsil Bhadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station In-Charge, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Achal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.05.2026 1. The applicant have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.112/2026, registered at Police Station D.D. Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 61(2) of the BNS and Section 66 of the Information KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Technology Act and Section 10(1) of the Public Examinations (prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.02.2026, a written report was lodged by Inspector Ravindra Kumar Yadav at Police Station D.D. Nagar alleging that during the second shift of the GATE Examination conducted at Ion Digital Zone, the police received secret information that certain candidates, in conspiracy with persons outside the examination centre, were attempting to use unfair means through electronic transmission and Bluetooth devices for solving examination questions. Acting on the said information, the police reached the spot, apprehended certain suspects, and during enquiry, on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused persons, allegedly seized mobile phones, Bluetooth devices, electronic gadgets, admit cards and other incriminating articles. It is further alleged that after completion of the examination, the present applicants were also apprehended and electronic devices were recovered from their possession, and that all accused persons had entered into a pre- planned conspiracy to cheat in the examination by using electronic means, thereby causing prejudice to genuine candidates, on the basis of which the aforesaid crime has been registered against them for offences under Sections 318(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 10(1) of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. 3 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have not committed any offence. He further submits that the entire prosecution case is based merely on an alleged secret information received by the police, without any independent or legally admissible material directly connecting them with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the GATE Examination was conducted at a highly secured centre at Ion Digital Zone under strict frisking, CCTV surveillance, biometric verification and continuous supervision, yet no suspicion was raised against the applicants by any invigilator or examination authority during the examination, nor any CCTV footage or contemporaneous material has been produced to show use of unfair means. Furthermore, co-accused person namely Narendra Kumar has already been granted bail vide order dated 08.05.2026 in MCRC NO. 4304/2026, co-accused Bunty Kumar and Laxminarayan have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2026 in MCRC No. 4338/2026 and co-accused Amar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2026 in MCRC No. 4314/2026 and the case of the present applicants are similar to that of the co-accused persons who have been granted bail by this Court. He lastly submits that applicants are languishing in jail since 15.02.2026 and though the charge- sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants on the ground of parity. 4 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicants, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused persons and further, charge-sheet has already been filed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the bail application. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that co-accused person namely Narendra Kumar has already been granted bail vide order dated 08.05.2026 in MCRC No. 4304/2026, co-accused Bunty Kumar and Laxminarayan have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2026 in MCRC No. 4338/2026 and co-accused Amar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2026 in MCRC No. 4314/2026 and the case of the present applicants are similar to that of the co-accused, charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicants are languishing in jail since 15.02.2026 hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Let applicants, Darshan Sehwag and Sumit Sehwag, involved in Crime No.112/2026, registered at Police Station D.D. Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 5 61(2) of the BNS and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act and Section 10(1) of the Public Examinations (prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such 6 proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of 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 applicant is 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. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal