1 CGHC010194742026 2026:CGHC:28999 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4869 of 2026 Shubham Nirmalkar Son Of Santram Nirmalkar, Aged About 28 Years Resident Of House No. 106, Ward No. 27, Polsai Para, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Newai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred the First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.79/2025, registered at Police Station- Newai, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 420 & 419 of the IPC and Section 66(C) of the I.T. Act and Section 42(3)(E) of the Telecommunication Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant lodged a written complaint on 09.04.2025 alleging that the present applicant, without his knowledge or consent, fraudulently issued a SIM card in the complainant’s name. It is alleged that in the year 2022, the applicant obtained the complainant’s thumb impression and photograph on two occasions on the pretext that the SIM activation process had not been completed, but instead of issuing the SIM to the complainant, the applicant allegedly activated and sold the SIM card to some other person. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR came to be registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence and has been arrested merely on suspicion without there being any cogent material to establish his involvement. It is further submitted that in another case of a similar nature, i.e., FIR No. 128/2025 registered at Police Station Utai for offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC, the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1358/2026 vide order dated 16.03.2026. Other than this applicant has two more criminal antecedents registered against him which is explained in para 3 4(A) of the bail appication. It is also argued that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 23.04.2026, the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation is required. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail applications and submits that the applicant had three previous criminal antecedents for the similar nature of offence registered against him of the year 2024 and 2025 for the similar nature of offence, which itself shows that he is a habitual offender hence, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed, the period of custody of the applicant since 23.04.2026, the fact that the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court in another case of similar nature, and as the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of regular bail to the applicant. 7. 7. Accordingly, let applicant, Shubham Nirmalkar, involved in Crime No.79/2025, registered at Police Station- Newai, District- Durg 4 (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 & 419 of the IPC and Section 66(C) of the I.T. Act and Section 42(3)(E) of the Telecommunication 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 them under 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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) 5 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. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal