1 CGHC010375302026 2026:CGHC:42076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9144 of 2026 1 - Pradeep Kumar Uike S/o Late Bhole Singh Uike, Aged About 38 Years R/o Shitla Para Near Shitla Mandir Village Rasmada, Tehsil Andn District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station Supela, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant /State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.09.29 15:14:42 +0530 2 grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 32/2025 registered at Police Station Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter, “the Excise Act”). 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that, during scrutiny of suspicious bank accounts through the “Samanvaya Portal” of the Ministry of Home Affairs, it was found that several bank accounts maintained with Federal Bank, Supela Branch, District Durg, were being used as mule accounts for routing the proceeds of cyber frauds. Investigation revealed that various amounts, including 50,000/-, 16,090/- and 5,00,000/-, were credited into ₹ ₹ ₹ Account No. 99980123348463, which, according to the prosecution, is connected with the present applicant Pradeep Kumar Uike. 3. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he is innocent. He would further submit that the very foundation of the prosecution case is perverse as the account relied upon by the prosecution does not belong to the applicant. He would further contend that the applicant is in jail since 17/04/2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the applicant be enlarged on regular bail as the applicant’s 3 continued incarceration would serve no further investigative purpose . 4. On the other hand, Keshav Gupta, learned counsel for the non- applicant/State, would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He would further submit that the case of the applicant does not pertain to an isolated transaction but relates to a well- organized cyber fraud racket. He would also contend that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been denied the benefit of grant of bail by this Court , therefore, the applicant is not entitled to grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the first bail application preferred by the applicant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09/07/2026 passed in MCRC/4591/2026 and also considering that the co-accused persons have also been denied the benefit of grant of bail by this Court and there is no change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 4 7. Accordingly, this MCRC is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Harneet