1 2026:CGHC:26584 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5730 of 2026 Paritosh Manna S/o Nitai Manna Aged About 42 Years Present Rio Plot No. 56, Amalprasth Dev Kamti Kawatha Upalwadi Nagpur, Maharashtra, Present R/o Prem Nagar, Police Station Shanti Nagar, Nagpur, District- Nagpur, Maharashtra. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Chalgali, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Advocate appears through video conferencing along with Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. The default pointed out by the Registry of this Court is waived off. 2. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 21/2025 registered at Police Station – Chalgali, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 319(4) of the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 6788 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2025 on merits. 4. As per the prosecution case, in brief, it is alleged that the complainant, Abhishek Jaiswal, lodged a written complaint at Police Station Chalgali alleging that between March, 2024 and September, 2024, the promoters/operators of the “Antofagasta” online application induced him to invest money on the false promise of earning high returns and thereby dishonestly cheated him of a sum of Rs.4,84,200/- through online transactions. It is further alleged that several other villagers were similarly defrauded, and during the course of investigation it was found that an aggregate amount of Rs.20,81,827/- had been siphoned off from different victims. During investigation, the statements of the victims revealed that the accused persons used mobile numbers 7744965289 and 7761003332 to contact prospective investors through WhatsApp and induce them to invest in the said application. The Call Detail Records (CDRs) and Customer Application Forms (CAFs) obtained by the Cyber Cell traced one of the aforesaid mobile numbers to Nagpur, Maharashtra, whereupon the investigating team interrogated the present applicant, Paritosh Manna. It is alleged that the applicant disclosed that, at the instance of one Samarth Damle, he had accompanied him to Lucknow on several occasions and 3 facilitated the opening and use of bank accounts in the name of one Nitesh. The prosecution further alleges that the applicant had knowingly opened multiple bank accounts in the name of his firm, “Paritosh Construction”, with the State Bank of India, Canara Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank and IDBI Bank, through which transactions involving several lakhs of rupees were routed. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Crime No. 21/2025 was registered at Police Station Chalgali for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the investigation is presently underway. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits. He further submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant is an illiterate person, having studied only up to Class V, and after the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to establish a catering and decoration business, he approached one Samarth Damle, who represented himself as a loan consultant and assured him of arranging bank finance. On the pretext of processing the loan, Samarth Damle got several bank accounts opened in the name of the applicant and retained his signed cheque books, ATM cards, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, internet banking credentials and other documents, which were thereafter misused without the applicant’s knowledge or consent. It is further submitted that the applicant has no knowledge whatsoever about the alleged “Antofagasta” online 4 application or the transactions allegedly routed through his bank accounts, nor does he have any connection with the other accused persons involved in the alleged offence. He submits that the applicant himself is a victim of the fraud perpetrated by Samarth Damle and has been implicated merely because certain bank accounts stood in his name. It is further contended that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is the sole breadwinner of his family comprising his wife, two unmarried daughters and a minor son, and his continued incarceration would cause irreparable hardship to his dependants. It is also submitted that the statements of prosecution witnesses, namely PW-1 Abhishek Jaiswal and PW- 2 Sandeep Kumar, have already been recorded before the learned Trial Court, and in their cross-examination they have admitted that they were not acquainted with the applicant, which prima facie weakens the prosecution case against him. He further submits that the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant is no longer required for custodial interrogation, and the applicant is in jail since 04.07.2025. Hence, he prays for grant of second bail to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present is a second bail application, whereas the earlier bail application preferred by the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court. It is further submitted that the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie establishes the involvement of the applicant in a well-organized online financial fraud, wherein 5 substantial amounts collected from numerous victims were routed through bank accounts opened and operated in the name of the applicant. The prosecution has collected sufficient documentary as well as electronic evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence, and the gravity and magnitude of the economic offence disentitle him from the discretionary relief of bail. It is, therefore, submitted that in the absence of any fresh or substantial ground, and considering the seriousness of the allegations, the present second bail application deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that the present is the second application for grant of bail. The earlier bail application preferred by the applicant was dismissed on merits, and after such rejection, no substantial change in circumstances or new ground has been brought on record so as to justify reconsideration of the prayer for bail. The allegations against the applicant pertain to a well-organized online financial fraud involving cheating of several innocent persons and routing of substantial amounts through bank accounts allegedly opened and operated in the name of the applicant. At this stage, the material available on record prima facie indicates the applicant’s involvement in the alleged offence. In the absence of any new 6 circumstance or change in the factual matrix after rejection of the first bail application on merits, therefore, I am not inclined to grant second bail to the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Paritosh Manna, involved in Crime No. 21/2025 registered at Police Station – Chalgali, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 319(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000., is rejected. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. 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 Rahul Dewangan