1 2026:CGHC:16891 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3332 of 2026 Mukesh Gar S/o Shri Chetan Gar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Vishala, Shiv Bhakri, Police Station Barmer, District Barmer (Rajasthan) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station In-charge, P.S. Bacheli, District – South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.04.2026 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. 02/2025, registered at Police Station – Bacheli, District – South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC (318 of BNS) and Section 66D of the IT Act. 2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.06.2025 passed in MCRC No.4475/2025, on merits. 3. The case of the prosecution, is that on 19.01.2025, the complainant, namely Nitin Wahane, lodged a written complaint alleging that he came across an online investment advertisement while searching a RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Facebook ID "nitinwahne05" through his mobile phone. Upon accessing the said advertisement and accepting an invitation, he was redirected to an application titled "Black Rock Indian Business School," wherein he filled a registration form. It is alleged that thereafter, the complainant was added to a WhatsApp group named "VIP675 BLACK ROCK BUSINESS SCHOOL" through a mobile number, wherein one Nalij Lim was acting as the coordinator. The complainant submitted the registration form via WhatsApp on 18.12.2023 and, upon instructions, downloaded the "BR App" from the Play Store. After entering an activation code, the application was activated, and he was prompted to furnish his bank account details. 4. The complainant has alleged that he made certain investments through the said application using his SBI Bacheli account as well as his wife's Axis Bank Bilaspur account. Subsequently, after a period of 2-3 months, when he attempted to withdraw the invested amount, he was allegedly asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,66,222/- towards tax. Accordingly, on 07.02.2024, the said amount was transferred from his wife's Axis Bank account to an AU Bank account in the name of "Laxmi Enterprises." It is further alleged that thereafter, an additional amount of Rs. 4,88,741/- was demanded as advance tax, which was also transferred on 08.02.2024 to the same AU Bank account. Despite making the aforesaid payments, the complainant was allegedly not permitted to withdraw the invested amount, and no refund was made despite repeated requests. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the complainant has claimed that he was defrauded of a total sum of Rs. 13,54,963/- by the persons operating the said mobile number and 3 bank account, and accordingly sought registration of an FIR against them. Hence, this application. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.06.2025 in MCRC No.4475/2025, on merits, thus, this second bail application is on the ground that there are a total of 10 prosecution witnesses in the case out of which only 2 have been examined and their statement have been recorded before the trial Court, and there is no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 21.03.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, and the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail as he along with the co-accused is said to have defrauded the complainant for a sum of Rs. 13,54,963/-. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 8. 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 applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.06.2025 in MCRC No.4475/2025, on merits, thus, this second bail application is on the ground that there are a total of 10 prosecution witnesses in the case out of which only 2 have been 4 examined and their statement have been recorded before the trial Court, there is no criminal antecedents of the applicant, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 21.03.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 9. Let applicant, Mukesh Gar, involved in Crime No. 02/2025, registered at Police Station – Bacheli, District – South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC (318 of BNS) and Section 66D of the IT Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, out of which one shall be family member 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 5 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. 10. 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