1 CGHC010277642026 2026:CGHC:37430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6867 of 2026 Sanjay Singh Tondon S/o Kalayan Das Aged About 32 Years R/o H/o - 310, Ward No. 6 Wrs Colony, Khamtarai, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Ganj, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.08.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 79/2025, registered at Police Station - Ganj, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5),111, 3(5), of the BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Crime No.79/2025 was registered at Police Station Range Cyber, Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.08.21 11:02:38 +0530 2 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging an organised cyber fraud whereby the victims were dishonestly induced to part with substantial amounts of money. During investigation, it was alleged that the present applicant, in furtherance of a common intention with the co- accused, knowingly permitted his bank account to be used for routing and receiving proceeds of the alleged fraud, including an amount of Rs.27,27,556/-. After investigation, the applicant was arrested and the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court alleging his involvement in the organised cyber fraud. The learned IV Sessions Judge, Raipur, by order dated 20.02.2026, rejected the applicant's second bail application, observing the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of trial, wherein only two prosecution witnesses had been examined. 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 was not named in the FIR and there is no allegation that he directly contacted, deceived or induced any complainant, nor is there any direct evidence establishing his active participation or criminal intent; his implication is primarily based on the alleged use of his bank account. Mere credit of money into an account, without independent material establishing conscious knowledge, mens rea or participation in the alleged fraud, does not by itself establish his complicity. It is further submitted that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, and therefore no further custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has remained in custody for approximately ten months, whereas only two prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is likely 3 to take considerable time. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of Raipur, has no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and is ready to abide by any condition imposed by the Court. On these grounds, considering the prolonged incarceration, completion of investigation and the slow progress of trial, the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, involving organised cyber fraud and fraudulent transactions. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.27,27,556/- was allegedly routed through the bank accounts of the accused persons, including the account of the present applicant, and that sufficient incriminating material has been collected during investigation indicating his prima facie involvement. It is further submitted that only two prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material available on record, the applicant does not deserve the benefit of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, and the fact that the co-accused, namely Devansh Dhruw Malkhan has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 4 9659 of 2025 vide order dated 028.01.2026, and that the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing, further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has been in judicial custody since 01.05.2025, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let applicant, Sanjay Singh Tondon, involved in Crime No. 79/2025, registered at Police Station - Ganj, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5),111, 3(5), of the 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. (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 5 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav