1 CGHC010229232026 2026:CGHC:31508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5774 of 2026 1 - Anjor Das Banjare S/o Late Vikram Das Banjare Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Belkhuri, Police Station- Pathariya, District Mungeli C.G. ... Applicant (s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 regular bail to the applicant, who is in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 77/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 311(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 3(5) of BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of a complaint received from the Cyber Cell, Mungeli, through the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) Samanvay Portal, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli registered Crime No. 77/2025 alleging that certain bank accounts were being used as mule accounts for receiving, concealing, utilizing, and layering the proceeds of cyber fraud. During the investigation, it was found that an amount of ₹5,76,648/- had been credited to various such bank accounts during the period from 01.01.2024 to 28.02.2025. It is alleged that the account holders and facilitators knowingly assisted in the receipt and utilization of the proceeds of cyber fraud. Accordingly, the present crime was registered against 22 account holders and facilitators. During the course of investigation, the present applicant was implicated and arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is a 70-year-old illiterate labourer from a rural background and has no knowledge of the alleged transactions. He is the father of co-accused Raj Kumar Banjare, who is in judicial custody and his daughter-in-law, the wife of the 3 said co-accused, is also in custody. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the applicant, no bank account or transaction has been linked to him and there is no material to show that he derived any benefit from the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he has been in judicial custody since 07.04.2026. Since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that, as per the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, the investigation reveals that the applicant was involved in facilitating mule bank accounts used for receiving and transferring the proceeds of cyber fraud. It is further submitted that a substantial amount of money obtained through cyber fraud was routed through such accounts and that the applicant actively participated in the said illegal activities. He also submits that the bail applications of the co-accused have already been rejected by this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the present bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant is a 70-year-old elderly person, the 4 charge-sheet has already been filed, no further custodial interrogation is required, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he has remained in judicial custody since 07.04.2026, coupled with the fact that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the opinion that further pre-trial detention of the applicant is not warranted. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of regular bail to the applicant. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant – Anjor Das Banjare involved in Crime No.- 77/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 311(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on furnishing 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 5 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. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously 6 from the receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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 Ruchi