1 CGHC010326082026 2026:CGHC:37855 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7875 of 2026 Amrendra Singh S/o Shri Abhayraj Singh Aged About 25 Years Occupation- Biryani Center, R/o - Village Sakalo, (Main Road Ghanghari), Police Station- Ghandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Ambikapur Dehat Ghandhinagar, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.08.2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 34/2026 has been registered at Police Station - Ambikapur Dehat/Gandhinagar, District - Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 317(4) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. Earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2022/2026. 3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, the present applicant is running a PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.25 17:50:36 +0530 2 small biryani centre at Ambikapur. It is alleged that co-accused Abhishek Sinha, who resides in the same locality, was a regular customer at the applicant's biryani centre and, therefore, had developed cordial relations with the applicant. In December 2024, the co-accused allegedly informed the applicant that his bank account had become non-operational due to KYC-related issues and technical problems and, consequently, he was unable to receive certain amounts/funds from his wife, which were required for clearing his market dues and liabilities. It was further informed that the wife of co-accused Abhishek Sinha was working in the Income Tax Department. It is further alleged that, believing the representation made by the co-accused, the applicant permitted him to use the QR Code installed at his biryani centre for receiving payments. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,06,786/- was allegedly credited to the applicant's bank account through the said QR Code during the period from 29.11.2024 to 04.12.2024. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present offence was registered against the applicant and the co- accused. 4. 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 applicant's first bail application was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2022/2026. Learned counsel further submits that there is no allegation in the case diary that the applicant contacted, induced, deceived, or made any fraudulent representation to the complainant or any victim in relation to the alleged cyber fraud. It is contended that, as regards the progress of the trial, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only one prosecution witness has so far been examined before the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the 3 charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 17.01.2026. Since the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, learned counsel prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant's first bail application was rejected on merits by this Court. It is, therefore, contended that there has been no substantial change in the circumstances warranting reconsideration of the matter. Accordingly, learned State counsel submits that the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that this is the second bail application filed by the applicant, though the first bail application was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2022/2026, a subsequent change in circumstances has arisen inasmuch as the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 17.01.2026 and, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has so far been examined. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant - Amrendra Singh involved in Crime No. 34/2026 has been registered at Police Station - Ambikapur Dehat/Gandhinagar, District - Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 317(4) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya 4 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti