1 CGHC010165622026 2026:CGHC:28465 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3858 of 2026 Goutam Singh S/o- Babulal Singh Aged About 26 Years Resident Of Devipur Majhapara. Police Station- Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) (As Per Fir) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kapil Maini, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. This is the first 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. 357/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 319(2), 111(2) of BNS and 2 Section 66(C) of Information Technology Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that pursuant to a communication received from the Additional Superintendent of Police/Nodal Officer, Cyber Cell, District Surguja, regarding the issuance of fake mobile SIM cards through Point of Sale (POS) agents, an investigation was conducted. During the investigation, it was allegedly found that co-accused Lal Bahadur Sarathi @ Burju and Tejbal Das had procured SIM cards of various telecom companies in the names of different villagers and, using those SIM cards, opened multiple bank accounts in different banks. It is alleged that the passbooks, ATM cards and cheque books of those accounts were retained by the accused persons for fraudulent use. On this basis, Crime No. 357/2025 was registered at Police Station Ambikapur under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS. During investigation, certain account holders stated that the present applicant, Amleshwar Kumar Vaishanav, along with co-accused Ravi Kashyap and Gautam Singh, had obtained their documents for opening bank accounts, which were subsequently handed over to co-accused Lal Bahadur Sarathi and Tejbal Das. The prosecution further relies upon the alleged disclosure statement of co-accused Ravi Kashyap, who is stated to have admitted his involvement in the offence in conspiracy with the other accused. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence 3 in question. He further submits that the bail application of the identically situated co-accused, namely, Amleshwar Kumar Vaishnav and Vinay Prajapati has already been allowed by this Court vide common order dated 16.03.2026 passed in MCRC Nos.986 of 2026 and 1876 of 2026. The applicant is in jail since 30.05.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 29.04.2026, the concerned Investigating Officer has filed his personal affidavit in the present case disclosing the evidence collected during the course of the investigation, but could not dispute the fact that bail application of co-accused, namely, Amleshwar Kumar Vaishnav and Vinay Prajapati has already been allowed by this Court and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the said co-accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 30.05.2025, the fact that though the applicant allegedly in connivance with the co-accused, facilitated the opening of bank accounts using the documents of innocent persons and thereafter 4 handed over the account-related documents to the principal accused for their illegal use, but considering the fact that bail application of the co-accused, namely, Amleshwar Kumar Vaishnav and Vinay Prajapati has already been allowed by this Court vide common order dated 16.03.2026 passed in MCRC Nos.986 of 2026 and 1876 of 2026 and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the said co-accused persons, further the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Goutam Singh, involved in Crime No. 357/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 319(2), 111(2) of BNS and Section 66(C) of Information Technology Act, 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 5 Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil