1 CGHC010258492026 2026:CGHC:37230 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6183 of 2026 Nanki Gond S/o Lakhan Gond Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Nahar Para Rachhabhantha, P S Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.128/2026 registered at Police Station – Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 111(2) & 3(5) of the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that certain amounts allegedly representing the proceeds of cyber fraud were transferred into a bank VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.08.19 17:43:40 +0530 2 account standing in the name of the present applicant. It is alleged that the said bank account was being used as a “mule account” for receiving and facilitating the transfer of the alleged fraudulent proceeds. During November, 2023, amounts of Rs.2,40,997/-, Rs.34,937/- and Rs.2,00,000/- were allegedly credited into the said account. On the basis of the aforesaid transactions and allegations, the applicant has been implicated in the present case and was arrested on 23.04.2026. The prosecution has accordingly alleged the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged cyber fraud. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations levelled against him are baseless, concocted and unsupported by any credible material. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce any material showing that the applicant himself was involved in any cyber fraud, induced any victim, communicated with any complainant, participated in any fraudulent transaction or derived any wrongful gain from the alleged offence. The entire case against the applicant is based merely on the fact that certain alleged proceeds of cyber fraud were credited into a bank account standing in his name, whereas mere existence or operation of a bank account in the applicant’s name does not, by itself, establish his conscious or active participation in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that no incriminating article, electronic device, forged document or other material connecting the applicant with the alleged cyber fraud has been recovered from his possession, and being a rustic villager with limited education, there is every possibility that his bank account details were obtained and misused by other persons 3 without his knowledge. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 23.04.2026, his custodial interrogation is no longer required, and his continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is also submitted that a co- accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2026 passed in MCRC(A) No. 724/2026, and the case of the present applicant stands on an equal, if not better, footing, thereby entitling him to the benefit of parity. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and has deep roots in society; hence, there is no likelihood of his absconding, tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the witnesses. Accordingly, considering the nature of the allegations, absence of any specific overt act or recovery, the period of custody, parity with the co-accused and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial, learned counsel prays that the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposes the bail application of the applicant. 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, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the fact that the co-accused, namely Vansh Kumar Dewangan, has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.A. No. 724 of 2026 vide order dated 12.05.2026, and that the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing, and further considering 4 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 23.04.2026, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let applicant, Nanki Gond, involved in Crime No.128/2026 registered at Police Station – Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 111(2) & 3(5) of the BNS, 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, 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 5 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 vaibhav