1 CGHC010288722026 2026:CGHC:34759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7223 of 2026 Manoj Verma S/o Dheluram Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Village Charuada, Post Dharsiwa, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House O2cer, P.S. Civil Lines, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aishwary Diwan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/08/2026 1. This is the second bail application 9led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 452/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.), for the o>ences punishable under Sections 111, 3(5), 317(2), 317(4) and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Earlier, the 9rst bail application preferred by the applicant, being MCRC No. 1718/2026, was rejected on merits by this Court vide KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 order dated 09.04.2026. Hence, this second bail application. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Ministry of Home A>airs, through its "Samanvay" Portal, identi9ed 17 mule bank accounts maintained in DCB Bank, Raipur Branch, which were allegedly being used for routing the proceeds of cyber fraud committed across di>erent States. During investigation, it was found that one such bank account bearing No. 21211100010353 stood in the name of Jaspreet Singh, through which illegal transactions amounting to Rs.26,33,550/- had taken place. It is alleged that Jaspreet Singh, in his memorandum statement, disclosed that he had sold the said bank account to the present applicant for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-. The investigation further revealed that an amount of Rs.26,30,485/- had been withdrawn from the said account within a short span of time. Accordingly, the present applicant was arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application and the applicant is in judicial custody since 21.12.2025. It is further submitted that after rejection of the 9rst bail application, there has been a subsequent change in circumstances inasmuch as, out of 08 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined till date and therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. On the aforesaid ground, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the earlier 9rst bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits after considering the 3 entire material collected during investigation, including the a2davit 9led by the Investigating O2cer pursuant to the order of this Court, wherein the incriminating evidence collected against the applicant had been speci9cally dealt with. It is submitted that except the progress of trial, there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. Therefore, it is prayed that the present bail application be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the 9rst bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court after elaborate consideration of the allegations levelled in the FIR, the a2davit of the Investigating O2cer and the incriminating material collected during the course of investigation, this Court 9nds that all the issues raised on behalf of the applicant have already been duly considered while rejecting the earlier bail application. The only subsequent circumstance pointed out in the present application is that, out of 08 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined till date and the applicant is in custody since 21.12.2025. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid circumstance, by itself, does not constitute such a substantial change in circumstances so as to take a di>erent view from the one already taken while rejecting the 9rst bail application on merits. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the present applicant- 4 Manoj Verma, involved in Crime No. 452/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.), for the o>ences punishable under Sections 111, 3(5), 317(2), 317(4) and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the learned trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from today, if there is no legal impediment. 10. O2ce is directed to send a certi9ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal