1 CGHC010330862026 2026:CGHC:42324 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7960 of 2026 Aman Agrawal S/o Shri Rajesh Agrawal, Aged About 29 Years R/o. E - 2, 1130, G H 07, Crossing Republic, Police Station - Crossing Republic, District - Ghaziabad (U. P.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Of The Police Station - Cyber Range Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy G.A. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY) Order on Board 29/09/2026 1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.02/2026 for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of BNS and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act. 2) As per the case of prosecution, the complainant was induced by the accused persons posing themselves as insurance officials on the pretext of releasing insurance policy benefits after payment of processing charges. The complainant transferred a sum of Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.09.30 10:39:32 +0530 2 Rs.16,60,500/- in the accused persons’ bank accounts. At least three persons cheated other persons and the total cheated sum was Rs.71,08,065/-. The applicant was arrayed as one of the accused persons on the basis of mobile phones, SIM cards and ATM cards seized from him in another Cyber Crime registered at Ghaziabad (U.P.). During course of investigation, it was found that in the year 2020 the present applicant along with another accused, namely, Palak Mishra induced various victims by posing themselves as insurance officials. The applicant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded wherein he confessed his involvement in commission of crime. The material collected during the course of investigation would reveal that the applicant along with co-accused persons used large number of Bank accounts in receiving proceeds of crime. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the present case, the Bank account of the applicant was not used at all in commission of crime. He would further contend that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 25.06.2026 and there is no direct evidence against the present applicant and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he would pray for grant of bail. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application. He would submit that the present applicant is involved in commission of crime. The mobile SIM used in commission of crime was seized from Ghaziabad and in the memorandum statement of co- accused persons, the fact was disclosed that the present applicant 3 used to call victims impersonating himself as insurance official. It is also argued by the State Counsel that the present applicant has three criminal antecedents of similar nature registered in the year 2025- 2026. Thus, he would pray that the bail application deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) Two criminal antecedents of similar nature were registered in the year 2025 and the present is third one. It appears that the applicant is habitual offender. Having considered the material collected during course of investigation; the allegation that the present applicant has two more criminal antecedents of similar nature registered, one at Ghaziabad and another one at Dwaraka in the year 2025 and third one relates to present case; and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court in the present case 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 this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7) Accordingly, the bail application of applicant is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Anjani