1 CGHC010286812026 2026:CGHC:37829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7531 of 2026 Amit Dewangan S/o Devchand Dewangan Aged About 23 Years R/o Aman Vihar Chaddabadi Gali No. B - 06, Mangla, Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House O.cer, Police Of Police Station Range Cyber Crime, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.08.2026 1. This is the second bail application 2led under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 08/2025 registered at Police Station – Range Cyber Crime, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the o7ence punishable under Sections 61, 317(5), 318(4) 111(3) (4), and 323 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 1985 of 2026 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2026 on merits. 3. As per the prosecution story, in brief, is that during the investigation of the mule account allegedly operated by the applicant, the Indian RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) informed the Cyber Cell on 13.02.2025 that several bank accounts were being used in connection with online fraud, and a total amount of Rs. 97,83,492/- was allegedly transferred through 82 bank accounts. It is further alleged that the applicant is one of the persons involved in the said transactions. On the basis of the aforesaid information and the material collected during investigation, the Police of the concerned Police Station registered the o7ence against the applicant and other accused persons and, thereafter, arrested the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that this is the second bail application preferred by the applicant, as his 2rst bail application was rejected on merits by this Court with a direction to the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible. It is submitted that the applicant has not acted in the manner alleged by the prosecution and has been in judicial custody since 11.09.2025. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been 2led, however, the trial has not progressed substantially and not a single prosecution witness has been examined till date, despite the applicant having remained in custody for a considerable period. It is also submitted that other accused persons in the case have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2025, a copy whereof has been 2led and marked as Annexure A-4, and other co-accused persons have also been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a copy whereof has been 2led and marked as Annexure A-5. It is, therefore, submitted that, in view of the 3 prolonged incarceration of the applicant, 2ling of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood of considerable time being required for conclusion of the trial, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present is a second bail application, whereas the earlier bail application preferred by the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court. It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and that, during investigation, his involvement in the alleged online fraud transactions has surfaced, wherein a substantial amount of Rs. 97,83,492/- was allegedly transferred through 82 bank accounts. It is further submitted that the applicant is alleged to have been involved in operating or facilitating the use of a mule bank account for the purpose of such fraudulent transactions. It is, therefore, submitted that in the absence of any fresh or substantial ground, and considering the seriousness of the allegations, the present second bail application deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further the fact that the present is the second bail application preferred by the applicant, as his earlier bail application was rejected on merits. It is alleged that the applicant was involved in the operation/use of a mule bank account in connection with online fraudulent transactions, wherein a substantial amount of Rs. 4 97,83,492/- was allegedly transferred through 82 bank accounts. Further considering the fact that though learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has remained in custody since 11.09.2025, the charge-sheet has already been 2led and no prosecution witness has been examined till date, however, in support of the said submission, the applicant has not 2led the relevant order-sheets of the learned Trial Court to demonstrate the actual status and progress of the trial. In the absence of the order- sheets, the contention regarding delay in the trial cannot, by itself, be accepted as a su.cient ground for grant of bail, therefore, I am not inclined to grant second bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Amit Dewangan, involved in Crime No. 08/2025 registered at Police Station – Range Cyber Crime, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the o7ence punishable under Sections 61, 317(5), 318(4) 111(3) (4), and 323 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. O.ce is directed to send a certi2ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan