1 2026:CGHC:24760 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 835 of 2026 Lakheshwar Kashyap S/o Pitambar Kashyap Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Ward No. 01, Sadakpara Podi, Post Office-Godhana, Police Station- Nawagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Nawagarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.06.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 128/2026 registered at Police Station – Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(2) (b), 318(4) and 3(5) of BNS 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22/04/2026, Inspector Kamlesh Kumar Shende has made Complaint at Police Station- Nawagarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and stating that as per 2 direction of Cyber Cell, office of the District Police Janjgir, on inquiry of maul account in the Samanvaya, portal, the holders of account Nos. 50100346518497, 50100546354400, 50100584983620, 50100686983014, 50100686983155, 50100686983283 H.D.F.C. Bank, Branch-Nawagarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) have committed online fraud by obtaining a sum of rupees 20,40,244/- within period 12/11/2023 to 20/09/2024 and on the basis of said complaint Crime No. 128/2026 has been registered, in which one of the account No. 50100346518497 has been operating in the name of applicant without his knowledge. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis that one of the alleged bank accounts stands in his name. It is submitted that the applicant is a small kirana shop owner who had approached HDFC Bank for obtaining a loan, during which the account was opened, but no loan was ultimately sanctioned. The applicant had no knowledge of the alleged fraudulent transactions and has not received any portion of the alleged defrauded amount. There is no material available on record to show his active involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel also submits that a co-accused, namely Vansh Kumar Dewangan, has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 724/2026 vide order dated 12.05.2026; therefore, on the ground of parity also, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that during the inquiry conducted through the Samanvaya Portal, it was found 3 that the bank account standing in the name of the applicant was involved in transactions relating to online fraud amounting to Rs.20,40,244/-. It is contended that the investigation is still in progress and the role of the applicant is yet to be fully ascertained. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the offence involving cyber fraud and cheating of innocent persons, the applicant is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is prayed that the application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation indicating that the bank account standing in the name of the applicant was used in the alleged online fraud involving a substantial amount, and the fact that the investigation is still in progress, this Court is not inclined to grant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Further, the plea of parity raised by the applicant is not available to him, as the case of the co-accused, who was granted anticipatory bail, stands on a different footing. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds no ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Jyoti