1 CGHC010362512026 2026:CGHC:41327 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8906 of 2026 1 - Jagmohan Bharti S/o Shri Muktavan Bharti, Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 208, Satnami Para, Dunda, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Of The P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raj Shengale, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr.Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. AG Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 23.09.2026 1) This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 290/2025, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of BNS and Section 42(3) of Telegraph Act. Earlier first bail REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH DN: cn=REKHA SINGH, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.09.23 14:36:17 +0530 2 application bearing MCRC No.880 of 2026 was rejected on merits vide order dated 24.02.2026. 2) As per the prosecution story, in brief, the complainant, on 26.06.2025, received information from the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre Portal, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, revealing that 41 mobile SIM numbers had been used for committing cyber fraud and obtaining illegal funds. Based on said information, the Cyber Police Station, Raipur initiated legal action. During investigation, it was revealed that said SIM cards were used to contact victims and deceitfully induce them to transfer money, thereby causing wrongful loss to the public and unlawful gain to the accused persons. It is further alleged that said SIM cards were procured using forged documents and were misused for carrying out organized cyber fraud activities. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the alleged offence was registered against the present applicant, and subsequently, the applicant was arrested. Hence, the present bail application. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that though the first bail application, i.e. MCRC No. 880 of 2026, was dismissed on merits vide order dated 24.02.2026 but subsequently, co-accused have been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 1698 of 2026, MCRC No. 5981 of 2026 and MCRC No. 3576 of 2026. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled against the present applicant and other co-accused are almost similar. It is also contended that the applicant is in jail since 15.09.2025 and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore, it is prayed that the second bail application may be allowed. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that the co-accused was granted bail as his 3 name was not mentioned in the FIR and only omnibus allegations were levelled against him. He would contend that, in the case of Nageshwar Chakradhari, there was an allegation that said accused used one mobile number to commit online fraud by inducing the complainant, Chirag Kumar, to deposit an amount of Rs.62,080/-. Likewise, Shivnand Chauhan used one mobile number which was registered in the name of his elder mother-in-law. He would further contend that the present applicant is the person who provided SIM cards to the other accused persons, and those SIM cards were used in the commission of the alleged offence. It is also contended that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order. He would, submit that the present application deserves to be rejected. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) Having considered the fact that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 24.02.2026 by a detailed order, and further considering that the applicant is alleged to have provided SIM cards to other accused persons, which were used in the commission of a systematic cyber crime, and during the period from 04.01.2024 to 02.03.2025, an amount of Rs.18,52,654/- was fraudulently withdrawn from the accounts of various complainants, this Court is of the view that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co- accused who have already been granted bail. The bail applications of the co-accused were allowed on the ground that they had used a single SIM card. 7) Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present 4 applicant, which are distinguishable from those levelled against the co- accused, who have already been granted bail, and further considering that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha