1 CGHC010304772026 2026:CGHC:38416 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7203 of 2026 Satyam Keshari S/o Uday Prasad Keshari Aged About 26 Years R/o Sattipara Near Sharda Vidyapeeth School, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.08.2026 1. Despite sufficient time having been granted to the State to produce the affidavit, the same could not be produced 2. 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. 432/2026 registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Ambikapur District VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.09.01 11:07:28 +0530 2 Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 317(4) of the BNS. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of information received from the Cyber Cell regarding a bank account allegedly linked with complaints of cyber fraud, the present offence was registered. During the course of investigation, it is alleged that the applicant had opened certain bank accounts in his own name and thereafter handed over the account details to co-accused Ayush Sinha @ Deep, who allegedly used the said bank accounts for receiving the proceeds of cyber fraud. It is further alleged that, in consideration thereof, the applicant received a commission of Rs. 4,000/- per bank account. Thus, the prosecution alleges that the applicant knowingly facilitated the commission of cyber fraud by providing his bank accounts for receipt of the alleged proceeds of crime. Hence, the offence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that a perusal of the charge- sheet prima facie reveals that there is no cogent material connecting him with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.07.2026 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 11891 of 2026 arising out of Crime No. 325/2024, and the said order, though relating to a different crime, constitutes an additional circumstance in favour of the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the very same bank account had already been disclosed by the applicant in Crime No. 05/2026 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, in which he has 3 already been granted bail, and therefore, registration of the present case on the basis of the same bank account does not justify his continued incarceration. It is also submitted that there is no direct evidence showing receipt of the alleged cheated amount by the applicant and the prosecution has only alleged that he provided the bank account to the co-accused, coupled with a bald allegation of receiving commission. It is further submitted that the applicant has already been arrested, the relevant bank account documents are in possession of the investigating agency and his further custodial detention is not required. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant is a young college student and his continued detention would seriously prejudice his education and future prospects; he is also the sole earning member of his family and his prolonged incarceration would cause severe financial hardship to his dependents. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the bail application, where his movable and immovable properties are situated, and there is no likelihood of his absconding. The applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all the conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court; hence, it is prayed that he be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 26.06.2026, and that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 8. Let the Applicant – Satyam Keshari, involved in Crime No. 432/2026 registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 317(4) of the BNS, be released on bail on his 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 his 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 5 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. 9. 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 Vaibhav