1 CGHC010377512026 2026:CGHC:42480 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9237 of 2026  Naveen Kumar Joon S/o Azad Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Sonipat, Sonipat Sehar, Sonipat Hariyana ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate For State : Dr. Saurabh Pande, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.09 .2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 180/2026 registered at Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 338, 3(5) of BNS and Section 66(D) of IT Act. 2. Earlier, first bail application i.e. MCRC No. 5150 of 2026 was rejected on merits vide order dated 10.07.2026. 3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 10.06.2024, the complainant allegedly received a Demand Draft of Rs.103 crores from one Grace David, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.10.01 17:16:51 +0530 2 purportedly residing in the United Kingdom. Thereafter, he was informed through various emails that certain amount was required to be deposited for clearing the said Demand Draft. He was further advised by an employee of HDFC Bank to approach Naveen Kumar Joon/applicant in this regard. The complainant thereafter approached the applicant and as instructed by him, complainant deposited money in the bank accounts of applicant and his family members and the said amount was subsequently transferred in bank accounts of different persons. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He would submit that the applicant is indulged in business of providing consultancy and loan facilitation services and it was the complainant who approached the applicant for assistance in clearing the disputed Demand Draft. He would further submit that the applicant did not induce or deceive the complainant in any manner and has no criminal antecedents. He would submit that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail in MCRCA No. 687 of 2026 and MCRCA No. 1161 of 2026 vide orders dated 07.05.2026 and 29.07.2026 respectively. The applicant is in jail since 01.04.2026 and the conclusion of the trial may take some time. He would pray for grant of bail to the present applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application. He would submit that the present applicant is the main person, who cheated the complainant and induced him to deposit money in the bank accounts of the applicant and his family members. He would further submit that, on the instructions of the applicant, the money deposited by the 3 complainant was thereafter transferred in bank accounts of different persons. He would submit that the case of the co-accused persons is distinguishable from that of the present applicant. He would further submit that the grounds raised in the present second bail application were also raised in the first bail application, but said bail application was rejected on merits. He would therefore submit that there is no change in circumstances and instant application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. The first bail application was rejected on merits vide order dated 10.07.2026, after considering the allegations with regard to applicant's active involvement. Further, the case of the co-accused persons is distinguishable as no transaction was detected in their bank accounts, but the present applicant induced the complainant to deposit money in the bank accounts of the applicant and his family members, and thereafter, on his instructions, the said amount was transferred to different persons. The grounds raised in the present application were also available to the applicant at the time of consideration of the first bail application, no new ground has been raised and there is no change in circumstance, I am not inclined to allow this application. 8. Accordingly, instant bail application is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant