1 2026:CGHC:6563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1307 of 2026 Chaitanya Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Gajendra Kumar Dewangan Aged About 24 Years (Not Mentioned In Impugned Order), R/o House No. 74, Ward No. 10, Durgapara, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O3cer, P.S. Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2026 1. This is the ;rst bail application ;led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 228/2025 registered at Police Station- Devendra Nagar, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) for the o>ence under Sections 43, 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 336(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS). 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the applicant was an KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 employee of the complainant. It is alleged that during the course of his employment with the complainant’s company, the applicant hacked the company’s o3cial email ID and gained access to its con;dential information. It is further alleged that the applicant prepared a false experience certi;cate and a relieving order on the company’s letterhead and emailed the same to himself. Consequently, Crime No. 228/2025 was registered against the applicant for o>ence under Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as he has not played any role in the alleged o>ence and the charges are not prima facie made out against him. It is submitted that the applicant, a young and educated person, joined the complainant company, Career Tronics Global Services Pvt. Ltd., as a Project Executive on 01.07.2025 on a monthly salary of ₹18,000/–, but he was not paid his full salary and received no payment from October 2025 to 11.11.2025, due to which he resigned and informed the company through email. Despite repeated demands, his lawful dues were not paid and his calls were avoided, compelling him to approach the police on 12.11.2025. It is further submitted that on 15.11.2025, during a police intervention for settlement, the complainant allegedly forced the applicant to bring his laptop and mobile phone to the police station, where they were tampered with, which was duly reported to the police. Thereafter, the present FIR 3 was lodged on false allegations of email hacking and preparation of forged documents. It is also submitted that the applicant obtained information from the Ministry of Corporate A>airs showing that the complainant operates several companies, some inactive, allegedly for tax evasion and that complaints regarding unfair investigation have also been made by the applicant’s father to senior police o3cials, but no action has been taken. There is no allegation that the applicant derived any undue bene;t from the alleged documents and in absence of substantive evidence, his continued detention would be unjusti;ed and would cause undue hardship, therefore, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, involving unauthorized access to official email, misuse of confidential company data and preparation of forged documents, which constitute offences under the Information Technology Act as well as relevant provisions of law, therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the material available in the case diary, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary and material available on record, this Court ;nds that although 4 allegations have been made regarding unauthorized access to the company’s email and preparation of certain documents but there is no material to show that any monetary loss has been caused to the complainant company and also considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been ;led before the competent Court, and therefore, further custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, the trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant – Chaitanya Kumar Dewangan, involved in Crime No. 228/2025 registered at Police Station- Devendra Nagar, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) for the o>ence under Sections 43, 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 336(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS), 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 ;le an undertaking to the e>ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates ;xed 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 ;xed, either personally or through 5 his counsel. In case of his absence, without su3cient 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 ;xed 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 ;xed 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 su3cient 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. O3ce is directed to send a certi;ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal