1 CGHC010269562026 2026:CGHC:29940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6304 of 2026 Anup Chaubey S/o Nagendra Nath Chaubey Aged About 30 Years R/o Bauripara Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) Permanent R/o Village Ketat Kalan, P.S. Rehla, District- Palamu (Jharkhand) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15/07/2026 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. 130/2026 registered at Police Station AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Kotwali, Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Pintu Kumar Gupta, lodged a report alleging that the present applicant, on the false pretext of requiring money for his wife's medical treatment, dishonestly used the complainant's bank account as a mule account without his knowledge. During investigation, it was found that an amount of Rs.80,000/-, allegedly derived from cyber fraud, was deposited into the complainant's account through a CDM machine and was thereafter withdrawn through the complainant's ATM card and handed over to the applicant. On the basis of the material collected during investigation, an FIR was registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 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 in question. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay of about one year and eight months in lodging the FIR, which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution case, except for the oral allegations made by the complainant, there is no incriminating material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence, since the case involves only a single accused, the applicability of all the alleged provisions of the BNS is doubtful. He also submits that the 3 investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. Further, no material on record to establish that the applicant directly participated in or derived any benefit from the alleged cyber fraud, and no incriminating article has been seized from his possession. The applicant is in jail since 01.04.2026, the applicant has two criminal antecedents registered in the year 2025 under the BNS, out of which, against one case, the applicant has preferred bail application bearing MCRC No.6331 of 2026, which is also listed today and another case is pending, 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. She further submits that the applicant allegedly on the false pretext of his wife's medical treatment, dishonestly induced the complainant to permit the use of his bank account as a mule account for routing cyber fraud proceeds. It is alleged that the applicant got Rs.80,000/- deposited into the complainant's account, caused the amount to be withdrawn through the complainant, and later on received the cash, thereby committed the alleged offence and is not entitled for grant of bail. 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 4 since 01.04.2026, the fact that though the applicant allegedly on the false pretext of his wife's medical treatment, induced the complainant to allow the use of his bank account as a mule account for routing cyber fraud proceeds, got Rs.80,000/- deposited therein, withdrew the amount through the complainant, and thereafter received the cash, but considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, which are two in number of the year 2025 under the BNS, out of which, against one case, the applicant has preferred bail application bearing MCRC No.6331 of 2026, which is listed today and the same is also allowed today itself by this Court and another case is pending, 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-Anup Chaubey, involved in Crime No. 130/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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. 5 (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 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