1 CGHC010315132026 2026:CGHC:38312 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7957 of 2026 Surendra Kumar Berman S/o Ratan Lal Berman, Aged About 28 Years R/o Dhangaon, P. S. And Tahsil Mulmula District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station – Mulmula, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.08.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 304/2025, registered at Police Station – Mulmula, District – Janjgir-Champa (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, Section 66(C) of the IT Act, and Section 42(3)(e) of Telecommunication Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that an offence was registered against the applicant was registered before the Police Station concerned, alleging that the applicant along with co-accused persons namely his wife Neha Barman and one Rakesh Kumar Pandey, in furtherance of their common intention, allegedly obtained Point of Sale(POS) codes on different mobile numbers, and it is alleged that the applicant and co- accused, by using the said POS codes, activated a total of 27 SIM RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Cards without the knowledge and consent of the customers, by utilizing their identity documents, Aadhaar Card Copies, and photographs, with an intention to derive unlawful gain. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 12.11.2025 and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant along with co-accused persons namely his wife Neha Barman and one Rakesh Kumar Pandey, in furtherance of their common intention, allegedly obtained Point of Sale(POS) codes on different mobile numbers, and the applicant and co-accused, by using the said POS codes, activated a total of 27 SIM Cards without the knowledge and consent of the customers, by utilizing their identity documents, Aadhaar Card Copies, and photographs, with an intention to derive unlawful gain. It is further submitted that the bail application of the co-accused has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.2525/2026, and there are a total of 4 criminal antecedents of the applicant of similar nature and all are still pending, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy and the fact that the applicant along with co-accused persons namely his wife Neha Barman and one Rakesh Kumar Pandey, in furtherance of their common intention, allegedly obtained Point of Sale(POS) codes on different mobile numbers, and the applicant and co-accused, by using the said POS codes, activated a total of 27 SIM Cards without the knowledge and consent of the customers, by utilizing their identity documents, Aadhaar Card Copies, and photographs, with an intention to derive unlawful gain, moreover, the bail application of the co- accused has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.2525/2026, and there are a total of 4 criminal antecedents of the applicant of similar nature and all are still pending, and no plausible explanation has been given for the same, which shows that applicant is a habitual offender and he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant- Surendra Kumar Berman, involved in Crime No. 304/2025, registered at Police Station – Mulmula, District – Janjgir-Champa (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, Section 66(C) of the IT Act, and Section 42(3)(e) of Telecommunication Act, is rejected. 4 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar