1 CGHC010338332026 2026:CGHC:38876 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.8194 of 2026 Rajeshwar Sahu S/o Banshilal Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Thakurdiya, P.S. And Tahsil Nawagarh, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2026 1. This is the 2nd 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 SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.09.03 10:58:34 +0530 2 Crime No.128/2026 registered at Police Station – Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(2)(b), 318(4) and 3(5) BNS. Earlier application was rejected on merits vide order dated 10.07.2026 passed in MCRC No.5987/2026. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that during the period from 2019 to 2024, the Applicant, in furtherance of a common intention with the co-accused, got bank accounts opened in the names of Gautam Devangan, Nanki God, Tulsi God and three others at HDFC Bank, Rachabhatha Branch, Nawagarh, by fraudulent means for receiving proceeds of cyber fraud and received commission of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- for opening each account. It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.20,40,244/- received through cyber fraud was credited into the aforesaid bank accounts between 12.11.2023 and 24.09.2024. Subsequently, the Applicant was arrested in connection with the alleged offence. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and is behind the bars since 23.04.2026. It is further submitted that the Applicant was arrested on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Nanki Gond, who has 3 already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2026 passed in MCRC No.6183/2026. It is further submitted that co-accused Vansh Kumar Dewangan and Lakhan Lal Sultan have also been granted anticipatory bail vide orders dated 12.05.2026 and 13.07.2026 passed in MCRCA Nos.724/2026 and 987/2026 respectively. It is also submitted that no amount has been recovered from the Applicant nor has anything incriminating been seized from his possession and he has remained in custody for about four months and two days. He further submits that the Applicant’s 14-month-old son has undergone surgery of both eyes and requires follow-up treatment at Hyderabad and therefore, considering the period of custody, parity and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the co-accused have been granted bail on different facts and circumstances and moreover, the first bail application of the present Applicant was rejected on 10.07.2026, i.e., subsequent to the grant of bail to the said co-accused namely Vansh Kumar Dewangan. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary and 4 upon perusal of the orders whereby the co-accused persons were granted bail, this Court finds that the co-accused persons have been granted bail on different facts and circumstances and the case of the present Applicant is distinguishable from that of the said co-accused, therefore, no ground for grant of bail on the basis of parity is made out and this Court is of the considered opinion that the Applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Rajeshwar Sahu involved in Crime No.128/2026 registered at Police Station – Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(2)(b), 318(4) and 3(5) BNS is hereby rejected. 7. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya