1 / 4 CGHC010159322026 2026:CGHC:28593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4601 of 2026 Surendra Kumar Berman S/o Ratan Lal Berman Aged About 28 Years R/o Dhangaon P.S. & Tahsil Pamgarh District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh (As Per Correct Details) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station - Pamgarh District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh (As Per Correct Details) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Vinod Tekam, GA (Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice) Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 01/05/2025 in connection with Crime No. 484/2025, registered at Police Station City Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC; Section 66 ( c) of the Information Technology Act; and Section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunication Act. RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.10 11:33:21 +0530 2 / 4 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the applicant, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Neha Barman and Rakesh Kumar Pandey, was engaged in procuring and activating SIM cards through forged and fabricated customer identification documents. The applicant allegedly prepared Point of Sale (POS) codes in the names of co-accused persons and, by using Aadhar cards, photographs and other identity documents of unsuspecting persons without their knowledge or consent, activated as many as 152 SIM cards. The prosecution alleges that the said SIM cards could be used for large-scale financial frauds and cyber crimes while concealing the identity of the actual users. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant and the applicant has been arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He would further submit that co- accused Neha Barman has already been granted bail by the learned JMFC, Pamgarh, and, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. He would next submit that the present offence was registered while the applicant was already in jail in another case, thereby indicating that he had no direct role in the alleged offence. He would lastly submit that the applicant is in jail since 01.05.2025 and is the sole breadwinner of his family, the investigation is complete, charge-sheet has been filed and, therefore, his further custodial detention is not warranted, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and would submit that the applicant is an habitual offender and has several 3 / 4 criminal antecedents of similar nature registered against him at different police stations. Merely because the co-accused has been granted bail, the applicant cannot claim parity as his role is distinct ane more serious. He would next submit that considering the gravity of the offence, the criminal antecedents of the applicant and the possibility of his indulging in similar offences if enlarged on bail, it is prayed that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. From perusal of the case-diary it appears that the applicant, in conspiracy with the co-accused, allegedly activated 152 SIM cards by using forged customer identity documents and Aadhar details of unsuspecting persons without their consent. Such acts have the potential to facilitate organised cyber frauds and financial crimes affecting a large number of innocent persons. Though the applicant seeks bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Neha Barman, parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right and has to be examined in light of the individual role attributed to the accused. Prima facie, the material collected during investigation attributes an active and significant role to the present applicant. It is also evident from the record that the applicant has multiple criminal antecedents, several of which involve offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, and criminal cases are stated to be pending against him at different police stations. Such antecedents disentitle the applicant from claiming the discretionary relief of bail at this stage and indicate the likelihood of his involvement in similar offences. 4 / 4 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the material collected during investigation, the criminal antecedents of the applicant and the larger impact of such offences on society, this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. SD/- SD/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul