1 2026:CGHC:21712 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2534 of 2026 Nitesh Pratap Singh S/o Udho Pratap Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Camp 01 Bhilai Thesil and District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer PS Vaishali Nagar District- Durg (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.05.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 86/2025 registered at Police Station - Vaishali Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4) and 61(2)(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, the applicant allegedly opened a bank account at the instance of co-accused Kunal Patnayak after being offered a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. It is alleged that the said co-accused used the bank account of the applicant for depositing amounts obtained through online/offline fraudulent activities. The applicant is a poorly educated PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.05.11 10:36:51 +0530 2 person, having studied only up to Class VIII, and was allegedly induced by the co-accused with the promise of monetary benefit, owing to which he consented to opening of the bank account. It is further alleged that subsequently the applicant came to know that his bank account was being used as a mule account for the purpose of defrauding various persons. According to the prosecution, transactions amounting to Rs. 1,12,58,419.70/- were routed through the said account. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2025 passed in MCRC No.6335 of 2025, thereafter, the applicant has preferred present second bail application on the ground that the co-accused persons, namely, Suraj Kumar and Nitish Kumar @ D.N., have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 26.02.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 10058/2025 and 1106/2026, respectively, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and the applicant is in jail since 02.06.2025, therefore, he prays that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court. Further, he submits that the bail application of two other co-accused persons have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No.6335 of 2025 and MCRC No.6240 of 2025 vide orders dated 11.08.2025 and 10.09.2025, respectively, hence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail 3 application of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2025 passed in MCRC No.6335 of 2025 on merits, but considering the fact that the co-accused persons, namely, Suraj Kumar and Nitish Kumar @ D.N., have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 26.02.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 10058/2025 and 1106/2026, respectively, further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, as such, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant- Nitesh Pratap Singh, involved in Crime No. 86/2025 registered at Police Station - Vaishali Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4) and 61(2)(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such 4 proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant 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 him in accordance with law. 8. 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 Preeti