1 CGHC010158032026 2026:CGHC:34567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3877 of 2026 Aditya Chauhan S/o Ramavatar Chauhan Aged About 21 Years R/o House No. 267, Street No. 4, Sundaripur, Police Chowki Gaushala, Vijaynagar, District : Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh --- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Bhanupratappur, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Gajendra Praksah Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 25/2026 registered at Police Station - Bhanupratappur, District : Kanker (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.01.2026, the complainant received an APK file on his mobile phone, which he inadvertently PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.07 15:50:33 +0530 2 downloaded, believing it to be harmless. Consequently, his mobile phone was allegedly hacked. It is further alleged that the complainant's mobile number was linked to the bank account of his wife, Swati Ross Ekka, through which he regularly carried out financial transactions using digital payment applications such as Google Pay, PhonePe, and SBI YONO. It is alleged that the present applicant, in connivance with the co-accused, namely, Ravi Vardhan, hacked the complainant's mobile phone and executed several fraudulent transactions, whereby a total sum of Rs. 9,28,500/- was fraudulently withdrawn from the said bank account. On the basis of the complainant's report, the police registered Crime No. 25/2026 for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is contended that there is no direct or cogent evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence and that the entire prosecution case is based merely on assumptions and digital inferences, without any concrete material establishing his involvement. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court has erroneously recorded a previous criminal antecedent of the applicant by confusing him with another person bearing the same name in Crime No. 03/2026, registered at Police Station Govindpuri, South-East, Delhi. It is submitted that both individuals are distinct persons and reside at different addresses, which is evident from the particulars mentioned in the said FIR. A copy of the FIR dated 02.01.2026 registered as Crime No. 03/2026 at Police Station Govindpuri, South-East, Delhi has been filed and marked as Annexure A/3. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody 3 since 06.04.2026. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed. He further submits that an affidavit of the concerned Investigating Officer has been filed regarding the evidence collected during the course of the investigation. It is contended that the investigation has revealed cogent evidence of fraudulent financial transactions from the mobile phone and bank account of the present applicant, which prima-facie establishes his involvement as a member of the organized fraud syndicate. Learned State counsel further submits that, apart from the present crime, one previous criminal antecedent has also been found to be registered against the applicant, as reflected in his criminal record. Therefore, it is prayed that the present applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in judicial custody since 06.04.2026, and that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, this Court is of the opinion that, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Aditya Chauhan, involved in Crime No. 25/2026 registered at Police Station - Bhanupratappur, District : Kanker (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 4 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 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. 5 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dirurt fo forthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti