1 CGHC010301162026 2026:CGHC:36030 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7499 of 2026 1 - Nitin Ginotra S/o Late Shri Ramji Dass Aged About 38 Years R/o B- 204, Oceanik Exotika Argora, Mahabir Nagar, Doranda, P.O. Doranda Ranchi, Jharkhand Pincode - 834002 (Father Name As Sh. Shamji Das And Address Wrongly Recorded In The Previous Order Sheets ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, P.S. Cyber Police Thana (Range Surguja Ambikapur Chhattisgarh Pincode - 497001 ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. B.P. Sharma along with Mr. Nitesh Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. The present is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of regular bail to the Applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Cyber Range Police Station, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 under Sections 318(4), 317(4), 3(5), 111 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 23(1), 23B and 23H of the SCRA. 2. Earlier, the first bail application filed by the Applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2026 passed in MCRC No. 4920 of 2026. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, namely Ravi Mohan Goswami, aged about 44 years, resident of Sadar Road, Ambikapur, submitted a written complaint before the In-charge, Cyber Range Police Station, Chhattisgarh, stating that he is engaged in share-market trading. During the year 2024, he received calls from several unknown mobile numbers, namely 8570064555, 8424855648, 8395943211 and 9991991448, from which the callers induced him to invest money in share trading by assuring him high and guaranteed returns. It is alleged that the said persons persuaded him to install applications namely “Money Trade 365” and “SkyTrade” from the Play Store and thereafter directed him to deposit money through QR codes and online transfers. Initially, the applications displayed false profits, pursuant to which the complainant transferred a total amount of Rs.20,15,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the present application is preferred on account of supervening circumstances and medical exigency concerning the Applicant’s family. It is submitted that the Applicant’s wife, Mrs. Meenakshi Ginotra, is presently about 31-32 weeks pregnant and is undergoing regular medical examination, consultations and treatment. Her expected date of delivery is in the 3 first/second week of September, 2026, and, considering the advanced stage of pregnancy, she requires regular medical monitoring and the physical, emotional and logistical support of her husband. It is further submitted that the Applicant’s father has already expired and there is no other immediate family member available to provide the necessary care and assistance to his wife during this critical period. The Applicant’s presence is therefore required for accompanying her to medical consultations, arranging medical treatment and transportation, attending to any emergency and providing necessary emotional support during the remaining period of pregnancy and at the time of delivery. Learned counsel further submits that the present application is based upon subsequent and supervening humanitarian circumstances which were not considered while deciding the Applicant’s earlier bail application, and therefore, the present prayer for interim bail does not amount to seeking review or reconsideration of the earlier order dated 16.07.2026 passed in MCRC No. 4920 of 2026. It is submitted that the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed and no further custodial interrogation of the Applicant is required. The Applicant has remained in custody since 27.04.2026 and has cooperated with the investigation. It is also submitted that, in the same Crime No. 03/2025, this Court had granted ad-interim bail to co-accused Sidharth Sikka vide order dated 02.06.2026 on humanitarian grounds arising out of the pregnancy of his wife and subsequently extended the same vide order dated 20.07.2026. The Applicant seeks parity only in the exercise of humanitarian discretion and not on the merits of the case. The 4 Applicant has maintained good conduct during incarceration and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of interim bail, to abide by all conditions imposed by this Court and to surrender before the concerned Jail Authorities immediately upon expiry of the period granted. It is, therefore, submitted that the interim bail sought is purely on humanitarian grounds and for a limited duration, so as to enable the Applicant to discharge his matrimonial and familial obligations towards his pregnant wife. Grant of interim bail would not prejudice the prosecution or affect the pending trial. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that, considering the peculiar circumstances and medical exigency of the Applicant’s family, he may kindly be enlarged on interim bail for an appropriate period. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the present application and submits that the co-accused was granted ad-interim bail on humanitarian grounds, considering that his wife was pregnant through IVF (In Vitro Fertilization), was undergoing continuous medical treatment and required daily injections of Hipenox 60. It is submitted that, in view of the IVF pregnancy and the need for regular medical intervention and supervision, the presence of the co-accused was considered necessary, as there was no other family member available to take care of his wife. Learned State counsel further submits that, considering the peculiar facts of the said case, particularly the fact that the State had not verified the medical documents despite specific directions of this Court, the medical condition of the co-accused’s wife was accepted for the purpose of granting ad-interim bail. Hence, no ground is made out for grant of interim bail to the Applicant. 5 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the present application is based upon the alleged pregnancy of the Applicant’s wife and the need for his presence and assistance during the advanced stage of pregnancy. The medical documents placed on record indicate that the Applicant’s wife is presently about 31-32 weeks pregnant and her expected date of delivery is in the first/second week of September, 2026. It is not disputed that the Applicant’s first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2026 passed in MCRC No. 4920 of 2026. The present application, however, is founded upon subsequent circumstances relating to the pregnancy of the Applicant’s wife and is therefore required to be considered on its own facts. The fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed is also taken into consideration. However, the Applicant has primarily relied upon the order passed in favour of co-accused Sidharth Sikka. Perusal of the said order shows that ad- interim bail was granted to the co-accused in the peculiar circumstances of that case, where his wife was pregnant through IVF, was undergoing continuous medical treatment and required daily injections of Hipenox 60. It was also noticed that there was no other family member available to take care of her. Further, despite specific directions of this Court, the medical documents relating to her IVF pregnancy had not been verified by the State, and in those circumstances, the medical condition of the wife was accepted for consideration of the humanitarian prayer. 6 8. The circumstances relied upon by the Applicant in the present case are distinguishable from those which prevailed in the case of the co- accused. The mere fact that the Applicant’s wife is in an advanced stage of pregnancy, though undoubtedly a circumstance deserving consideration, by itself does not constitute a sufficient ground for grant of interim bail. The Applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional medical complication or circumstance requiring his personal presence which cannot be managed by any other available means or person. The Applicant has also relied upon the fact that his father has expired and that there is no other immediate family member to take care of his wife. However, this circumstance, in the absence of any specific medical exigency requiring the Applicant’s personal presence, cannot by itself justify grant of interim bail, particularly when the earlier regular bail application has already been rejected. The Court is conscious that humanitarian considerations relating to the health and well-being of a pregnant wife are relevant and ought to be considered sympathetically. However, such considerations have to be balanced with the nature of the allegations, the circumstances of the case and the fact that the Applicant’s regular bail application has already been rejected. The parity claimed by the Applicant cannot be granted mechanically, particularly when the factual and medical circumstances in the case of the co-accused were materially different. At the same time, the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed does not, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, furnish an independent ground for grant of interim bail on humanitarian considerations. The Applicant’s undertaking to surrender after expiry of the interim bail period and his claim of good conduct have also been 7 considered. 9. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the subsequent circumstances relied upon by the Applicant, the nature of the medical condition of his wife as reflected from the material placed on record and the distinguishing circumstances in which ad-interim bail was granted to the co-accused, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant. 10. Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the applicant Nitin Ginotra in connection with Crime No.03/2025 registered at Cyber Range Police Station, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 317(4), 3(5), 111 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 23(1), 23B and 23H of the SCRA, deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 11. Consequently, I.A. No. 02/2026, an application for grant of interim bail, stands disposed of. 12. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 13. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Ruchi