1 2026:CGHC:23830 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2147 of 2026 Amanjit Ajmani S/o Harcharan Singh Ajmani Aged About 30 Years R/o Behind Jawahar Marg Sonkaksh District- Dewas (M.P.) (Details Of Applicant As Per Charge-Sheet) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Bacheli, District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15/06/2026 1. This is the first 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. 02/2025 registered at Police Station Bacheli, District- Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of I.T. Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant, along with the co-accused persons, acting in furtherance of their common criminal intention, was involved in an organized online banking fraud. It is alleged that the accused persons fraudulently opened bank accounts and, by inducing victims with false promises and greed, obtained access to their banking details. Thereafter, they dishonestly transferred an amount of Rs. 13,54,963/- from the bank accounts of the complainant and other individuals through online banking transactions. Upon receiving the complaint, the police conducted an investigation and found prima facie material against the applicant and the co-accused. Consequently, an FIR was registered, the applicant and other accused persons were arrested, and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent court for trial. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged fraud has been credited to or recovered from the bank account of the applicant, nor is there any material to show that he participated in any fraudulent transaction. Nothing incriminating has been seized from the applicant, and no bank account, passbook, or document connected with the alleged 3 offence has been recovered from his possession. The applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which by itself does not constitute substantive evidence against him. He also submits that no proceeds of crime or other incriminating material have been recovered from the applicant, and there is no independent or corroborative evidence establishing his involvement in the alleged offence. The charge sheet has already been filed and, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the applicant would serve no useful purpose and would amount to unwarranted deprivation of his liberty. He later submits that co-accused, namely, Mukesh Gar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.04.2026 passed in MCRC No.3332 of 2026. The applicant is in jail since 10.11.2025, the applicant has only one criminal antecedent of the year 2017 under the IPC in the State of Madhya Pradesh, further the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 10.03.2026, the concerned Investigating Officer has filed his personal affidavit disclosing the evidences collected during the course of investigation, wherein it has been 4 stated that an amount of Rs. 1,56,750/- had been deposited through multiple layers into Bank Account No. 2143010064611 belonging to co-accused Santosh Patidar within a short span of time as part of the alleged cyber fraud transactions. The investigation further revealed that several complaints regarding online financial fraud had been lodged by victims from different States on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (1930). Upon examination of the account, it was found that between 02.07.2024 and 08.07.2024, a total amount of Rs. 52,891.74/- was credited and Rs. 1,03,857/- was withdrawn therefrom. Santosh Patidar was accordingly summoned and served notices under Sections 35(3) and 94 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for interrogation and production of documents relating to the account. In his memorandum statement, Santosh Patidar disclosed that the present applicant, Amanjit Ajmani, had facilitated the opening of the said bank account as well as accounts of other persons and had allegedly utilized the same for commission of online cyber fraud. Therefore, 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. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 10.11.2025, the fact that though the present applicant facilitated the opening of bank accounts, including that of co- 5 accused Santosh Patidar, and used such accounts for routing proceeds of online cyber fraud, his involvement is alleged on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, who stated that the applicant had arranged and utilized the bank accounts for fraudulent online transactions, but considering the fact that co-accused, namely, Mukesh Gar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.04.2026 passed in MCRC No.3332 of 2026, the case of present applicant is identical to that of the said co-accued and the applicant has only one criminal antecedent under the IPC of the year 2017, which is old and stale, also considering the affidavit filed by the concerned Investigating Officer and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Amanjit Ajmani, involved in Crime No. 02/2025 registered at Police Station Bacheli, District- Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of I.T. Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 6 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 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. 9. 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 Akhil