1 2026:CGHC:26362 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5687 of 2026 Sanjeev Jangde S/o Dhanauram Jangde, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bode, Thana Fasterpur, Dist Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. City Kotwali, Mungeli, Dist Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ranjan Gupta, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. This is the third 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. 77/2025, registered at Police Station - City Kotwali Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier two bail applications filed by the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 15.07.2025 and 23.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 2533 of 2025 and MCRC No. 9510 of 2025, respectively. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.06.30 18:37:02 +0530 2 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, through the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), sent a letter dated 02.03.2025 to the Cyber Cell, Mungeli, stating that an amount of Rs. 5,76,648/- had been fraudulently deposited in several bank accounts maintained in different bank branches situated in District Mungeli during the period from 01.01.2024 to 28.02.2025. The letter further stated that the said bank accounts had been opened for the purpose of receiving proceeds of cyber fraud and were knowingly used for routing illegally obtained money. On the basis of the said communication, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, registered the present crime. During the course of investigation, it was allegedly found that the present applicant had assisted the co-accused persons in procuring bank accounts of villagers for the commission of cyber fraud. It was further found that the bank account of co-accused Sanjeev Jangde reflected transactions amounting to approximately Rs. 1.30 crore. Consequently, the FIR was registered against the present applicant along with the other co-accused. The allegation against the present applicant is that he facilitated the co-accused in obtaining bank accounts for the commission of the offence. However, no incriminating article was seized from the possession of the present applicant or the co-accused, namely, Chelak Ram Sahu and Sanjeev Jangde. During the investigation, the police seized documents relating to various bank accounts maintained with UCO Bank, Punjab National Bank, Axis Bank, and other banks. The present applicant and the co-accused were arrested, statements of witnesses were recorded, and upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the arrested accused persons. The final report also stated that further 3 investigation against the remaining accused persons and mule account holders was continuing under Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Copies of the First Information Report, the application seeking permission for further investigation against the absconding accused persons under Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that there is no legally admissible oral or documentary evidence connecting the applicant with the commission of the alleged offences. The prosecution case against the applicant rests substantially on the memorandum statements of the accused, which have not been proved during trial. The memorandum witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court and their evidence does not support the prosecution case. Further, no incriminating article or property has been recovered from the possession of the applicant pursuant to his memorandum statement. It is further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, have already been examined and the trial qua the present applicant stands concluded. The statement of the applicant under the relevant provisions of law has also been recorded. According to learned counsel, the evidence adduced during trial does not establish the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. 5. Learned counsel further submits that after conclusion of the trial of the present applicant, the prosecution has filed a supplementary charge- sheet against four newly arraigned accused persons, who were not 4 charge-sheeted earlier despite the prosecution allegedly having prior knowledge of their involvement. The trial against the said accused persons is yet to commence and is likely to consume considerable time. This subsequent development constitutes a significant change in circumstances, entitling the applicant to maintain the present successive bail application. It is also argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that the Punjab National Bank account relied upon in the charge-sheet belongs to the applicant. The Branch Manager examined before the trial Court has not identified the account as that of the applicant, nor has the prosecution produced any account-opening documents, photograph, signature verification, or other material linking the applicant with the said account. Likewise, although photocopies of the Aadhaar Card and PAN Card have been placed on record, there is no evidence to show that the applicant himself submitted those documents before the bank or that the signatures appearing thereon have been verified. The Investigating Officer has also failed to establish that the mobile number linked with the internet banking facility belonged to the applicant. It is further submitted that none of the passbooks seized during investigation were recovered from the applicant or stood in his name. The statements of the prosecution witnesses do not attribute any specific overt act to the applicant, nor do they substantiate his involvement in the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 21.03.2025. As the trial against the newly added accused persons is yet to begin, there is no likelihood of the case attaining finality in the near future. Continued incarceration of the applicant, despite conclusion of the evidence against him, would 5 amount to pre-trial punishment. 6. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, has no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and is ready and willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. It is, therefore, prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. He further submits that the first and second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on the ground that the present applicant has given his bank account Number, Aadhar card, ATM Card and mobile Number to the upper layer person who was involved in the said fraud and due to which, the online fraud was committed by the accused person and the complainant has suffered of huge amount i.e. 1 Crores 30 lakhs, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available on record, the fact that this is the third bail application, the applicant's period of incarceration since 21.03.2025, and the status of the trial, this Court finds that all the prosecution witnesses cited in the original charge-sheet have already been examined, although a supplementary charge-sheet has subsequently been filed against four newly arrested accused persons, the trial against the present applicant is at the verge 6 of its completion, and only the remaining procedural stages are yet to be concluded, accordingly, the present bail application is disposed of. 10. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously and make every endeavour to conclude the trial by passing an appropriate judgment, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/--Sd/-S (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav