1 2026:CGHC:17263 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1973 of 2026 Chetan Dhurve S/o Shri Lalit Dhurve Aged About 25 Years R/o Mahavir Para, Near Canara Bank, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Dongargarh, District – Rajnandgaon, C.G. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pranav Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First 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. 360/2025, registered at Police Station – Dongargarh, District – Ranjandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4) and 317(5) of the BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that on investigation and perusal of the mule account holders through the Samanvaya Portal operated by the ministry of Home Afairs, Government of India, it was found that 21 bank account holders of Bandhan Bank branch Dongargarh have fraudulently obtained a total amount of Rs. 10,06,544/- by committing cyber frauds with several people in different states of the country. It has further been alleged that these account holders conspired together to RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 commit online fraud using their bank accounts to earn illegal benefits. It has been alleged that the present applicant bank Account Number:- 20200062362979 facilitated the transaction of Rs. 7,762/- and obtained commission on it. Therefore, offence was registered against the present applicant. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and the charge- sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that the bail applications of the co-accused persons namely, Sachin Meshram and Aryan Namdev have already been allowed and they have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.02.2026 and 28.02.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 10391/2025 and 1532/2026. The applicant is in jail since 26.08.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, and substantial amounts of money have been credited and withdrawn from the bank accounts of the accused persons, which is clearly indicating their involvement in the commission of the offence, but could not dispute the fact that the bail applications co-accused person has already been allowed and they have been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 3 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the bail applications of the co-accused persons namely, Sachin Meshram and Aryan Namdev have already been allowed and they have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.02.2026 and 28.02.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 10391/2025 and 1532/2026, and the case of applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, the applicant is in jail since 26.08.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application, on the ground of parity. 7. Let applicant, Chetan Dhurve, involved in Crime No. 360/2025, registered at Police Station – Dongargarh, District – Ranjandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4) and 317(5) of the BNS, 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 4 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. 8. 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