1 CGHC010251482026 2026:CGHC:32378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5909 of 2026 Sanjay Kumar Tigga S/o Indrapaal Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Village- Manshukh, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Baikunthpur District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Barun Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2026 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. 218/2025 registered at Police Station- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a communication was received from the Office of the Inspector General of Police, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 SIV/CCTNS/Cyber Crime, Police Headquarters, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh, directing initiation of legal action against certain account holders of Axis Bank, ICICI Bank and UCO Bank, Baikunthpur Branch, whose bank accounts were allegedly being used as mule accounts for facilitating cyber fraud. Pursuant to the said communication, Police Station Baikunthpur registered Crime No. 218/2025 against the present applicant, Sanjay Kumar Tigga, along with 14 other account holders, for offences punishable under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4) and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the course of investigation, it was alleged that amounts obtained through online cheating from various States were credited into the applicant’s Axis Bank account bearing No. 924010057308027 and that the applicant had knowingly provided his bank account to members of a cyber fraud syndicate for facilitating the commission of such offences. As per the information furnished by Axis Bank, a total sum of Rs.3,99,365/- was credited and Rs.3,99,000/- was debited from the said account, while an amount of Rs.60,038/- was subsequently frozen. The applicant was arrested on 11.09.2025 and, upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed before the competent Court. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of certain bank transactions without there being any direct evidence to establish his involvement in the alleged cyber fraud. It is contended that there is no material on record to show 3 that the applicant himself committed any act of online cheating, had any direct connection with the alleged syndicate, or actively participated in the commission of the offence. He further submits that the only allegation against the applicant is that certain amounts were credited into his bank account, which by itself is insufficient to establish criminal liability in the absence of any evidence demonstrating his knowledge of or participation in the alleged fraudulent transactions. It is further submitted that the applicant is neither the mastermind nor the ultimate beneficiary of the alleged fraud and that no material has been collected during the investigation to indicate that he was aware of the source or nature of the transactions in question. He contends that the entire case is based upon documentary evidence, particularly bank records and transaction details, which are already in the custody of the investigating agency, and therefore no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is also submitted that the amount alleged to have been credited in the applicant’s account has already been frozen by the bank, thereby ruling out any possibility of tampering with the evidence. It is further submitted that despite the passage of considerable time, only one prosecution witness has been examined out of the total 14 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution. He further submits that one of the co-accused person namely, Anurag Sharma, involved in the same crime has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 23.06.2026 passed in MCRC No. 5481 of 2026, and the case of the present applicant stands on a similar footing. A 4 copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure A/3. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 11.09.2025, the 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 on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused person has already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the 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 allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that though the allegation against the applicant is that his bank account was used as a mule account for receiving and transferring amounts obtained through online cheating, but also considering the fact that the co-accused person, namely, Anurag Sharma, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.06.2026 passed in MCRC No. 5481 of 2026, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the fact that only one prosecution witness has been examined out of the total 14 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution and the charge-sheet has already been filed, he has no 5 criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 11.09.2025, and the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Sanjay Kumar Tigga, involved in Crime No. 218/2025 registered at Police Station- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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. (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, 6 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. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan