1 MCRC No. 2466 of 2026 & MCRC No. 3330 of 2026 CGHC010101702026 2026:CGHC:30692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2466 of 2026 1 - Krishna Kumar @ Krish S/o Vinod Kumar, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Wazir Hasan Road, Ravidas Nagar, Opposite Pramodini School, Lucknow Hazratganj (U.P.). --- Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Newai, District- Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent MCRC No. 3330 of 2026 1 - Deepak Gupta @ Buchhadhi @ Babu S/o Bhupendra Gupta, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Sant Kabir Nagar, Ramjagla, Present R/o Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, Dali Bagh, Lucknow, Bahukhandi Beside Minister’s Residence, Chhopadpatti, Police Station Hajratganj, District Lucknow U.P. --- Applicant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Newai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicants :- Mr. S.C. Verma Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohd. Naqeeb, Advocate. For State :- Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.07.2026 1. These are the First bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 MCRC No. 2466 of 2026 & MCRC No. 3330 of 2026 regular bail to the applicants namely Krishna Kumar @ Krish in MCRC No.2466/2026 and Deepak Gupta @ Buchhadhi @ Babu in MCRC No.3330/2026 who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 156/2025 registered at Police Station – Newai, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4)/420, 338/467, 336(3)/468, 340(2)/471 & 3(5)/34 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita/Indian Penal Code, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of a complaint alleging that unknown persons impersonated officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation and, by threatening arrest in a fabricated money laundering case linked to a Canara Bank account, dishonestly induced the complainant's father to transfer a total amount of Rs. 54,90,000/- in installments between 29.04.2025 and 29.05.2025. The investigation has been completed and charge sheet has already been filed. Only on the basis of memorandum statement the present applicants are implicated in the crime in question. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the applicants would submit that the present applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He would also submit that allegations levelled in the FIR do not assign any specific 3 MCRC No. 2466 of 2026 & MCRC No. 3330 of 2026 or direct role to the applicants in the alleged cheating. There is no material to show that they participated in facilitated or benefited from any transaction with the complainant. He would further submit that only on the basis of memorandum statement, it has come that the applicants have received ₹36,000/- commission from the alleged transaction which were distributed in four persons, however, nothing has been seized from the possession of the present applicant and even otherwise the alleged memorandum statement of the applicant has no evidentiary value and it is settled position of law that a confessional statement made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. The implication of the applicants appear to be without cogent material. The applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 14.06.2025 and since the investigation stands concluded and custodial interrogation is no longer required, continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment. He would further submit that the co-accused Rushikesh @ Rishikesh Joshi has already granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.10516 of 2025, therefore, the applicants are also entitled to be released on regular bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail applications of the applicants and submit that the 4 MCRC No. 2466 of 2026 & MCRC No. 3330 of 2026 charge-sheet has been filed in the present cases. He would also submit that bail of co-accused persons Shubham Shrivastava @ Mantilala and Laiq Ahmad have already been rejected vide order of this Court’s dated 11.09.2025 & 05.12.2025 passed in MCRC Nos.6415/2025 & 8972/2025, respectively and even the second bail of Shubham Shrivastava @ Mantilala is also rejected vide order dated 05.12.2025 passed in MCRC No.8373/2025. However, he could not dispute the fact that an identically situated co- accused Rushikesh @ Rishikesh Joshi has already been granted regular bail by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, that the applicants have no criminal antecedents, further, the fact that the other co-accused person Rushikesh @ Rishikesh Joshi has already granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.10516 of 2025, also considering the fact that the case of the present applicants are clearly distinguishable to the case of the other co-accused persons namely Shubham Shrivastava @ Montilala and Laiq Ahmad whose bails have rejected and further the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court in present cases, moreover, 5 MCRC No. 2466 of 2026 & MCRC No. 3330 of 2026 considering the detention period of the applicants they are in jail since 14.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in these cases on the ground of parity. 7. Let the Bail of Applicants – Krishna Kumar @ Krish and Deepak Gupta @ Buchhadhi @ Babu involved in Crime No. 156/2025 registered at Police Station – Newai, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4)/420, 338/467, 336(3)/468, 340(2)/471 & 3(5)/34 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita/Indian Penal Code, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant(s) 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(s) 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 6 MCRC No. 2466 of 2026 & MCRC No. 3330 of 2026 proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant(s) 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(s) 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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Ankit