1 2026:CGHC:25366 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4816 of 2026 P. Jay @ Sonu S/o P. Joga Rao Aged About 31 Years R/o Steel Nagar, Ward No. 29, Near Ram Mandir, Camp 01, Police Station, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.06.2026 1. This is the Third bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 86/2025 registered at Police Station - Vaishali Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2)(A) and 3(5) of the BNS. 2. Earlier the first and second bail applications of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide orders dated 10.09.2025 and 13.04.2026 in MCRC Nos.6240/2025 and 3334/2026, on merits. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one V. Mohan, who is the friend of the present applicant, had opened an account in Canara Bank, Vaishali Nagar branch, bearing account No. 110125175655, upon the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 present applicant telling him that he would get Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), from one Kunal Soni and one Kunal Pattnaik, if he allowed them to operate his account. After the opening of the account, V. Mohan gave the kit obtained from the bank to the present applicant, who gave it in turn to the main accused persons Kunal Soni and Kunal Pattnaik, and got Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only), in return. The present applicant neither had his account mentioned in the F.I.R., nor was he operating the account. The memorandum statement of V. Mohan mentions that he introduced him to the main accused persons, except that there is no role attributed to the present applicant, and moreover, no discovery was made on the basis of the said memorandum statement, hence it is inadmissible as such. An F.I.R. was registered by the branch manager of Canara Bank on 19.04.2025, stating that he had come to know that 111 accounts from his branch had received money from fraudulent transactions and also no debit memo was attached to them, and a charge-sheet was filed on 18.07.2025. Hence, this application. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and the charge- sheet has been filed in this case. It is submitted that though the first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected on merits, but the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court on the ground of incarceration period vide orders dated 26.02.2026, 26.02.2026 and 08.05.2026 passed in MCRC Nos.10058/2025, 1106/2026 and 2534/2026, and also in order dated 08.05.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 2362/2026, 3190/2026, 3630/2026, 3 3326/2026 and 2748/2026, and so far as the status of the trial is concerned, out of 21 prosecution witnesses only 4 have been examined by the trial Court. The applicant is in jail since 02.06.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that from the perusal of the case-diary it transpires that the applicant is involved in a serious cyber crime offence, in the present case total 13 accused person are involved and a total transaction of Rs. 1,12,58,419.70/- has taken place from the account of the applicant, the investigation revealed that the bank account of the accused/applicant demonstrate suspicious transaction activity, suggestive of his involvement in the organized cyber crime, and the bail application of the co-accused has also been rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 6335/2025, and on the same ground the first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court. As such, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that though the first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected on merits, but the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court on the ground of incarceration period 4 vide orders dated 26.02.2026, 26.02.2026 and 08.05.2026 passed in MCRC Nos.10058/2025, 1106/2026 and 2534/2026, and also in order dated 08.05.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 2362/2026, 3190/2026, 3630/2026, 3326/2026 and 2748/2026, and so far as the status of the trial is concerned, out of 21 prosecution witnesses only 4 have been examined by the trial Court, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 02.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 8. Accordingly, the present third bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let applicant, P. Jay @ Sonu, involved in Crime No. 86/2025 registered at Police Station - Vaishali Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2)(A) and 3(5) of the BNS, 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 5 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. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar