1 2026:CGHC:26875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5754 of 2026 Ujjwal Jaiswal S/o Upendra Jaiswal Aged About 19 Years R/o Quarter No. -1 C Sector- 11 Near Baba Balaknath Mandir Zone- 2 Ward No. 50, Khursipar, Durg (C.G.) P.S. Khursipar District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Khamardih, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 92/2025, registered at Police Station- Khamhardih, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1579/2026, vide order dated 11.03.2026, on merits. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hence this Second bail application. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present case arises out of a written complaint lodged by the complainant, Viral Patel, alleging that he was induced by the accused persons to invest money through a fraudulent investment scheme floated in the name of ASK Investment Manager Limited. It is alleged that during the period from 10.03.2025 to 06.04.2025, the complainant transferred a total amount of Rs.40,72,119/- into various bank accounts as instructed by the accused persons and was thereby cheated. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No.92/2025 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS at Police Station Khamardih, District Raipur, and the investigation was thereafter taken over by the Range Cyber Police Station, Raipur. During investigation, it was found that substantial amounts siphoned from the complainant had been routed through several bank accounts opened in the names of different firms. One such account belonging to M/s Rout Enterprises reflected transactions amounting to more than Rs.1.63 crores and was found to be linked with several cyber fraud complaints registered across different States. Likewise, another account in the name of M/s Unique Enterprises reflected transactions exceeding Rs.84 lakhs and was also found to be connected with numerous cyber complaints. During investigation, co-accused Vipul Patne disclosed in his memorandum statement that he had handed over the bank account and related documents to the present applicant, Ujjwal Jaiswal. Pursuant thereto, notices under Sections 35(3) and 94 of the BNSS 3 were issued to the present applicant requiring his appearance and production of relevant documents, however, he failed to cooperate with the investigation and did not furnish any satisfactory explanation. Consequently, he was arrested on 21.12.2025. The investigation further revealed that the applicant had received the bank account kit from the co-accused and had further delivered the same for operating online gaming activities, for which he had received an amount of Rs.1,04,000/- through different online modes. It was also found that the bank account linked with the applicant had witnessed transactions of approximately Rs.84.94 lakhs and was connected with multiple cyber fraud complaints. After completion of investigation against the arrested accused persons, charge-sheet has been filed, while investigation against the remaining accused persons is continuing separately. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court in MCRC No.1579/2026 vide order dated 11.03.2026 and the new ground for filing of second bail application is that it is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated and has no nexus with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that no amount has been seized from the possession of the applicant and the amount, if any, has been recovered from other co-accused persons. It is argued that the investigating agency did not conduct a proper enquiry before implicating the applicant and no offence is made out against him. It is further submitted that the applicant is in custody since 21.12.2025 and he is a newspaper hawker by profession and he is 4 the sole earning member of his family, his father is suffering from paralysis and is bedridden and his continued incarceration is causing severe hardship to his family. On these grounds, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits after considering the entire material collected during investigation, including the affidavit of the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that the present second bail application does not disclose any subsequent change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the earlier order. It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and sufficient material is available showing his involvement in the alleged cyber fraud. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the previous order passed by this Court. 7. On a pointed query being made by this Court regarding the present status of the trial, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not filed or annexed the order-sheets of the trial Court to demonstrate the progress of the trial. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the specific findings recorded by this Court while rejecting the applicant's first bail application on merits vide order dated 11.03.2026 in MCRC No.1579/2026, and further 5 considering that no subsequent change in circumstances or any fresh ground has been brought on record for reconsideration of the earlier order, this Court is not inclined to take a different view. Mere prolonged custody and the personal circumstances pleaded by the applicant, in the absence of any substantial change in circumstances, do not constitute sufficient grounds to entertain the second bail application. Moreover, the applicant has also failed to place the trial Court's order-sheets on record to substantiate any plea regarding the progress of the trial despite a pointed query being made by this Court thus, this Court is of the view that no good ground has been raised in this second bail application to interfere by this Court. 9. In view of above, the second bail application of the applicant namely – Ujjawal Jaiswal, involved in Crime No. 92/2025, registered at Police Station- Khamhardih, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023., 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal