1 CGHC010386342026 2026:CGHC:42684 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9250 of 2026 1 - Daitari Deep S/o Shri Damjee Deep Aged About 33 Years R/o Chota Ashok Nagar, In Front Of Chain Kirana Store, Ram Krishna Paramhans Ward No. 02 Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S. H. O. P. S. Azad Chowk, District Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 01.10.2026 1) The applicant has preferred this third Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.283/2025 registered at Police Station: Azad Chowk, District- Raipur, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.Earlier, two bail applications filed by the applicant were rejected on merits in 2 MCRC No. 4502 of 2026 vide order dated 10.07.2026 and MCRC No. 7873 of 2026 vide order dated 31.08.2026. 2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 17 bank accounts maintained with South Indian Bank, Raipur, were allegedly used for routing cyber fraud proceeds, pursuant to which Crime No. 283/2025 was registered. During investigation, Rs.2,11,10,263/- and Rs.46,61,115/- were allegedly credited into the accounts of co-accused Santosh Kumar and Karan Singh, respectively. On the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Karan Singh, the applicant was arrested for allegedly facilitating the use of said accounts for routing cyber fraud proceeds. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that two earlier bail applications filed by the applicant were rejected on merits in MCRC No. 4502 of 2026 vide order dated 10.07.2026 and MCRC No. 7873 of 2026 vide order dated 31.08.2026. He would further contend that the applicant is in jail since 21.12.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4) On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that 17 bank accounts were opened and used for routing cyber fraud proceeds and the applicant’s complicity surfaced during investigation. He would further submit that the earlier two bail applications of the applicant were rejected on merits and there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the 3 prayer for bail. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the material available on record, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the role attributed to the applicant, it appears that as many as 17 bank accounts were opened and utilized for routing the proceeds of cyber fraud, and the involvement of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. Further, the earlier two bail applications filed by the applicant were rejected on merits by this Court, and no substantial change in circumstances has been brought on record warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha