1 2026:CGHC:15384 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2989 of 2026 Priyank Jitendra Kumar Brahmbhatt S/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Jeevanlal Brahmbhatt Aged About 33 Years R/o Barotvas Jangral Patan Gujarat, Present Address E-101 Anand Eye Life Near Vaishnav Devi Under Pass Judal District Patan Gujarat. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Gudhiyari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.04.2026 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 268/2025, registered at Police Station- Gudhiyari, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 6856/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 on merits. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, while searching for a mobile phone on 25.02.2025, came across an advertisement on Google pertaining to BN Rathi Securities, which promised lucrative returns on investment. Upon clicking the said advertisement, the complainant was redirected to the company’s website and was subsequently added to a WhatsApp group, where he was provided with links and induced by the company’s representatives, who contacted him through different phone numbers, to invest money. Falling prey to the said inducement, the complainant invested amounts as instructed during the period from 12.03.2025 to 30.04.2025 and was allegedly cheated of approximately Rs.2,65,90,000/- by depositing the said amounts into various bank accounts. On the basis of the written complaint, a prima facie offence under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was found to have been committed within the jurisdiction of Raipur, and accordingly, a case was registered at Police Station Gudhiyari and taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused persons used multiple bank accounts, including IndusInd Bank Account No. 201032463052 (in the name of Kavya Enterprises with KYC details of Nagendra Kumar) and IDFC Bank Account No. 10079924518 (in the name of Good Dream with KYC details of Sheikh Suraj Baba), as well as IDFC Bank Account No. 10202008869 (in the name of Shivank Infinity IT Solutions with KYC details of Priyank Jitendra Kumar Brahmbhatt), for commission of the offence. The 3 complainant was induced to deposit amounts including Rs.7,00,000/- on 17.03.2025, Rs.15,00,000/- on 22.04.2025, Rs.10,00,000/- on 24.04.2025, Rs.10,00,000/- on 03.04.2025, and Rs.20,00,000/- on 05.05.2025 into the said accounts. The concerned banks furnished the KYC documents, including Aadhaar and PAN details of the account holders, and during investigation, sufficient material was collected indicating the involvement of the said accused persons, who were thereafter lawfully arrested. Hence, the present bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present is the second bail application, as the earlier bail application of the applicant, being MCRC No. 6856/2025, was rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 on merits. Thereafter, the applicant preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 331/2026 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.02.2026, a copy of which is filed herewith as Annexure A/4. It is further submitted that the bail application of a co-accused, namely Nagendra Kumar, in MCRC No. 8284/2025 was also rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 15.10.2025, however, the said co-accused preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3611/2026, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.03.2026. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 10.06.2025 and has, therefore, undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly nine months and charges have not yet been framed. Therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant is also entitled to be 4 enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused person has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. She further submits that the present is a second bail application, which was earlier rejected on merits by this Hon’ble Court, and thereafter the Special Leave to Appeal preferred by the applicant was also dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore, no new or substantial change in circumstances has been shown to warrant grant of bail. It is further submitted that the applicant is involved in a serious and well-organized financial fraud wherein the complainant was induced through online platforms, including Google advertisement and WhatsApp groups, to invest huge amounts on the false promise of high returns, and was thereby cheated of approximately Rs. 2.65 crores by transferring money into multiple bank accounts operated by the accused persons. Learned State Counsel contends that the investigation has revealed active involvement of the applicant in the said fraudulent transactions through bank accounts backed by KYC documents, and considering the gravity of the offence, the magnitude of the amount involved, and the manner in which the fraud has been executed, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court notes that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 and the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 331/2026 preferred thereafter was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.02.2026. However, it is also evident that the co-accused, namely Nagendra Kumar, whose bail application was similarly rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 8284/2025 vide order dated 15.10.2025, was subsequently granted relief by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3611/2026 vide order dated 09.03.2026. Further the fact that the applicant is in jail since 10.06.2025 and has, therefore, undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly nine months and charges have not yet been framed. In view of the aforesaid development and considering the principle of parity, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time and without commenting on the merits of the case, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Priyank Jitendra Kumar Brahmbhatt, involved in Crime No. 268/2025, registered at Police Station- Gudhiyari, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under 6 Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening 7 of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan