1 CGHC010298492026 2026:CGHC:34507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7174 of 2026 Ajay Kumar S/o Natthu Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Rukhala, Post- Rukhala, Police Station- Chharra, Aligarh (U.P.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Vidhansabha Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06/08/2026 1. This is the second 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. 64/2023 registered at Police Station Vidhansabha Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that between 11.02.2023 and 12.02.2023, the complainant, Leeladhar Sai Yadav, received calls from an unknown mobile number. The caller impersonated a senior judge and falsely claimed that his PhonePe application was not functioning. In order to gain the complainant's confidence, the caller sent a QR code to the complainant's mobile phone and induced him to transfer money. Acting on the said misrepresentation, the complainant transferred a total amount of Rs.2,93,997/- in ten transactions from his SBI NTPC Jamnipali, Korba savings bank account through PhonePe and Google Pay. During investigation, it was found that out of the defrauded amount, Rs.93,900/- was credited to an HDFC Bank account and Rs.1,49,998/- was credited to a Punjab National Bank account, both standing in the name of the present applicant, Ajay Kumar, resident of District Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. After serving notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recording the memorandum statement of the applicant in the presence of witnesses, the investigating agency completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order 3 dated 28.10.2025 in MCRC No.8519 of 2025, therefore the applicant filed present second bail application on the ground that the bank accounts allegedly used in the commission of the offence, namely HDFC Bank Account No. 50100596302286 and Punjab National Bank Account No. 100150017100210547, were never opened by the applicant. The applicant had already submitted representations before the concerned banks stating that the said accounts were fraudulently opened by some unknown persons by misusing his identity documents, mobile number and e-mail ID. The KYC formalities were completed through an online OTP process without the applicant's knowledge or consent. She further submits that upon receiving notice from the Range Cyber Police Station, Raipur, the applicant immediately appeared before the Investigating Officer and submitted a detailed written reply explaining the fraudulent opening of the bank accounts. However, the Investigating Officer allegedly ignored the applicant's explanation and implicated him without conducting a proper investigation. The applicant runs a grocery shop at Aligarh and had earlier submitted his Aadhaar Card and PAN Card at a nearby Punjab National Bank Customer Service Centre for opening an SBI account, wherefrom his credentials were allegedly misused for opening the impugned bank accounts. In this regard, the applicant's father also submitted written complaints to the Senior Superintendent of Police and Inspector General of Police, Aligarh, seeking action against the persons responsible. She also 4 submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 15.07.2025, the trial has made no substantial progress and no prosecution witness has yet been examined. The applicant's father has also moved an application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh, seeking appropriate action against the persons who had allegedly misused the applicant's identity and opened the fake bank accounts. Hence, she prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 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 substantial portions of the defrauded amount i.e. Rs.93,900/- and Rs.1,49,998/-, were credited to the HDFC Bank and Punjab National Bank accounts standing in the name of present applicant, which show that the applicant was the beneficiary of the proceeds of the fraudulent transactions, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail application of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2025 in MCRC No. 8519 of 2025 on the ground that the substantial 5 portions of the defrauded amount i.e. Rs.93,900/- and Rs.1,49,998/-, were credited to the HDFC Bank and Punjab National Bank accounts standing in the name of the present applicant and the said transactions prima facie indicate that the present applicant was a beneficiary of the proceeds of the alleged fraudulent transactions, but considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 15.07.2025 and has no criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has been filed, as such, 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-Ajay Kumar, involved in Crime No. 64/2023 registered at Police Station Vidhansabha Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 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. (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. 6 (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