1 2026:CGHC:1198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 101 of 2026 Abhay Kumar Sahu S/o Surajvansh Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sakaria, P.S. City Podibachara, Dist- Korea, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House O0cer, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.01.2026 1. This is the Second Bail Application 8led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 678/2025, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the o>ence punishable under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of IT Act and after framing of Charge Sections 42 and 43 of the Telecom Act was added. 2. The earlier bail application 8led by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn in MCRC No. 9345 of 2025 vide order dated 17.12.2025, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 as in the meantime the charge-sheet had been 8led against the present applicant and o>ences under Sections 42 and 43 of the Telecom Act were also added. However, the bail application which was rejected by the Trial Court was 8led after submission of the charge-sheet, and at that stage the applicant had not moved any separate bail application in respect of the o>ences under Sections 42 and 43 of the Telecom Act. The applicant was, therefore, directed to 8rst approach the Trial Court and, upon rejection of the bail application, to thereafter move a fresh bail application before this Court. In compliance with the said direction, the learned counsel for the applicant approached the Trial Court, where the bail application for the said o>ences was rejected, and thereafter the present second bail application has been 8led before this Court. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the co-accused, Shubham Yadav, has been working as a Distributor Sales Executive with Idea Vodafone Company since the year 2021. It is alleged that the said co-accused created a LAPU ID for selling SIM cards of the company and authorised his subordinate, Dhananjay Yadav (co-accused), to sell SIM cards in the local area. It is further alleged that Dhananjay Yadav illegally activated SIM cards and PhonePe accounts in the names of various persons without their knowledge and thereafter sent those SIM cards to Bhilai. In lieu thereof, Dhananjay Yadav allegedly received payments from the present applicant/accused through PhonePe and in cash. It is further alleged that the present applicant obtained several such SIM cards from the co-accused Dhananjay Yadav. On the basis of the 3 aforesaid allegations, the crime was registered and the present applicant was arrested by the police of City Kotwali, Balodabazar for the o>ences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 42 and 43 of the Telecom Act, the case was registered against them. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any o>ence and he has been falsely implicated in o>ence in question. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Dhananjay, in his memorandum clearly stated that he activated the SIM’s and there is no role of the present applicant. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Shubham Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2025 in MCRC No. 7773/2025. He also submits that the applicant has one criminal antecedent which is pending, and he is in jail since 04.09.2025, the charge-sheet has been 8led and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that co- accused has already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of o>ence, period of detention of the applicant since 04.09.2025, the fact that the other co-accused person, namely, Shubham Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2025 in MCRC No. 7773/2025, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused person, further the applicant has one criminal antecedent which is pending and the charge-sheet has been 8led in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant – Abhay Kumar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 678/2025, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the o>ence punishable under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of IT Act and Sections 42 and 43 of the Telecom Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 8le an undertaking to the e>ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 8xed 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 8xed, either personally or through 5 his counsel. In case of his absence, without su0cient 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 8xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against his, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 8xed 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 su0cient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against his in accordance with law. 10. O0ce is directed to send a certi8ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan