1 CGHC010330652026 2026:CGHC:42414 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8362 of 2026 Anis Giri S/o Avinash Giri Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Narwal, Barwal, P.S.- Bagaha-2, District- Champaran, Bihar ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Gandhi Nagar, District- Surguja, (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant :Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri,Govt. Advocate. SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 29/09/2026 1. This is the second bail application. Perusal of the documents enclosed along with the bail application shows that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.04.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1387 of 2026. 2. This bail application is filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as the applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.09.30 16:22:45 +0530 2 No. 649/2025 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur (Dehat) Gandhi Nagar, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 317(4) & 61(2) of the BNS. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Sujeet Mondal, lodged a written complaint stating that on 01.11.2025, the present applicant came to his shop and informed him that his ATM card was not working and that he required a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. He further stated that his boss would transfer the said amount to the complainant's account,and accordingly, the complainant handed over the cash after deducting his commission. Thereafter, on 07.11.2025, the complainant came to know that the amount credited to his account was fraudulent, due to which his account was blocked. The complaint was subsequently filed on 16.11.2025, and on the basis of the said complaint, the applicant was arrested on 18.11.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submits that after dismissal of the first bail application, the complainant has been examined and has not supported the prosecution case. He further submits that the applicant has been in custody since 18.11.2025. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that, upon perusal of the copy of the deposition placed on record, it appears that the complainant has supported the 3 prosecution case. He further reads out the relevant portion of the deposition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents filed along with the bail application. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, documents enclosed along with the bail application, this Court does not find the present second bail application to be a fit case for grant of bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is dismissed. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been in custody since 18.11.2025. Therefore, the learned Trial Court may kindly be directed to expedite the trial. 10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and the period of detention already undergone by the applicant, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and take all necessary steps for the examination of the prosecution witnesses. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge vaibhav