1 2026:CGHC:22624 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4490 of 2026 Atahar Nawaj S/o Fajal Nawaj Aged About 38 Years R/o B- 45, Krishna Nagar, F.I.C. Godown Ke Samne, Ward No. 9, Pahadi Chowk, Gudhiyari (Mentioned As Gudiyari In Impugned Order) District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Civil Lines, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station-Cyber Range, Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(3) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 9197/2025, vide order dated 17.11.2025, on merits. Hence this Second bail application. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.05.15 18:15:32 +0530 2 3. As per the prosecution’s case, Bank Account No. 60486587484, bearing IFSC Code MAHB0001928, maintained with the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Branch, was found to be in the name of Afroza Shaikh (Afro Corporation), and SIM Card No. 6266262219 linked to the said bank account was found to be registered in the name of Syed Sami Ullah. Upon questioning the account holder, Afroza Shaikh, and the SIM card holder, Syed Sami Ullah, it was revealed that the said SIM card and bank account were being used by the present applicant. Thereafter, the Cyber Police investigated the matter, and the present applicant was implicated in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that against the rejection of his first bail application in MCRC No. 9197/2025, the applicant had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 1920/2026, which was rejected vide order dated 02.04.2026 along with other connected matters. Similarly placed co-accused persons, whose bail applications were also rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, have subsequently been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that a co-accused - Manoj Jangde @ Jagid had preferred SLP (Criminal) No. 21198/2025 against the rejection of his bail application vide MCRC No. 9564/2025, order dated 25.11.2025, which was also rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide common order dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure A/4). Manoj Jangde @ Jagid has been granted the benefit of bail in his second bail application vide MCRC No. 4020/2026 by order dated 01.05.2026 and a co-accused Bajju Sharma had preferred SLP (Criminal) No. 21335/2025 against the rejection of his bail application vide MCRC No. 8993/2025, order dated 15.12.2025, which was also rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide common 3 order dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure A/4). Bajju Sharma has been granted the benefit of bail in his second bail application vide MCRC No. 3803/2026 by order dated 27.04.2026 and the case of the present applicant is also similar to that of the co-accused persons therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused persons. She submits that the first bail applications of the said co-accused persons were rejected by this Court, against which they had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions, including co-accused Sahil Jethwani, whose case was considered and rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a batch of matters arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 166/2026 and connected cases vide order dated 02.04.2026. She further submits that, thereafter, while preferring their second bail applications before this Court, the co-accused persons suppressed the material fact regarding the rejection of their bail applications by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, by concealing the said fact, successfully obtained the benefit of bail. It is further contended that since the orders granting bail to the co-accused persons were obtained by suppression of material facts, the present applicant cannot claim parity on the basis of such orders. Parity cannot be extended where the earlier bail orders themselves were secured by concealment of relevant facts from the Court. Therefore, considering the conduct of the co-accused persons and the seriousness of the allegations against the present applicant, learned State counsel submits that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail on the ground of parity in the present case. 4 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 rejection of the first bail application of the present applicant, he had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 1920/2026, which was considered along with the cases of other similarly placed co-accused persons in a batch of matters, the leading case being Sahil Jethwani vs. State of Chhattisgarh in SLP (Crl.) No. 166/2026, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide common order dated 02.04.2026 rejected the bail applications while directing the trial Court to expedite and conclude the trial within the stipulated period. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that thereafter, certain co-accused persons, while preferring their second bail applications before this Court, concealed the material fact regarding rejection of their bail applications by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, by suppressing the said fact, succeeded in obtaining bail orders. In such circumstances, the orders granting bail to those co- accused persons, having been obtained by suppression of material facts, cannot form a valid basis for claiming parity. It is apparent that parity cannot be claimed on the strength of orders secured by concealment of relevant facts from the Court. Considering that the present applicant’s bail application has also been specifically rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and in the absence of any substantial change in circumstances, coupled with the gravity of the allegations, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 8. It is also pertinent to note that in another similar matter arising out of the same crime number i.e. 129/2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Range, Raipur, this Court has today itself, i.e., on 13.05.2026, rejected 5 the second bail applications of the co-accused persons. Therefore, on the ground of consistency as well, no case for grant of bail is made out in favour of the present applicant. It is further noteworthy that the second bail applications of other co-accused persons, namely Harsh Soni, Sanjay Jaswani and Nikhil Chawla, which were listed on 12.05.2026, have also been rejected by this Court on the same day being MCRC Nos. 4405/2026, 4416/2026 and 4411/2026 respectively. 9. In view of above, the second bail application of the applicant namely – Atahar Nawaj, involved in Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station-Cyber Range, Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(3) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. 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