1 2026:CGHC:16092 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 515 of 2026 Sukhbeer Singh S/o Satnam Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o Mig 09, Housing Board, Kailash Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Old Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 110/2025, registered at Police Station – Old Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the BNS and Sections 66(D) of the IT Act. 2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 31.07.2025 in MCRC No. 5566 of 2025 on merits. 3. The case of the prosecution, is that complainant Durgesh Singh has made a complain on 20.03.2025 at about 23:32 that on 12.03.2025 he has received a message in his telegram account from an unknown person namely Chaya Puser ID @ Telpa5409 for work from home, and RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 it was assured that he will get Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1200/- per day for giving review and ratings to the products, there was no joining fees was prescribed, a link was also provided him, the complainant has registered himself with the company Global and received bonus of Rs. 10,000/- in his account and after giving rates and review he has again received Rs. 5000/- in his company account, to withdraw this amount he has been directed to deposit Rs. 21,444/ in the account of another co- accused similarly he has been directed to deposit Rs. 35000/-, Rs. 15000/-, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 36422/- after that the complainant was 1,55,995/- which was deposited by him by his and his directed to deposit Rs. wife's account, the complainant has deposited Rs. 3,13,444/- in different accounts of accused person but again he was directed to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- so he made a complaint in the police station Old Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) and the police has registered the offence. Hence, this application. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 31.07.2025 in MCRC No. 5566 of 2025 on merits, therefore, this second bail application is filed on the ground that one co-accused, namely, Narendra Kumar @ Tinku has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2026 passed in MCRC No.9962 of 2025 on the ground that the parties have amicably entered into a compromise, and the entire money/amount in question has already been refunded to the complainant, and on the same ground a second bail application of the co-accused namely Upendra Kumar Singh has also been allowed by this Court vide order dated 3 19.02.2026 in MCRC No.1642/2026. The applicant is in jail since 22.03.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail, but could not dispute the fact that the bail application of the co- accused has been allowed by this Court and the case of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 31.07.2025 in MCRC No. 5566 of 2025 on merits, therefore, this second bail application is filed on the ground that one co-accused, namely, Narendra Kumar @ Tinku has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2026 passed in MCRC No.9962 of 2025 on the ground that the parties have amicably entered into a compromise, and the entire money/amount in question has already been refunded to the complainant, and on the same ground a second bail application of the co-accused namely Upendra Kumar Singh has also been allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2026 in MCRC No.1642/2026, the applicant is in jail since 22.03.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application on the ground of parity. 4 8. Let applicant, Sukhbeer Singh, involved in Crime No. 110/2025, registered at Police Station – Old Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the BNS and Sections 66(D) of the IT Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 his 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 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 Rajshekhar