1 2026:CGHC:3407 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 716 of 2026 Yogesh Bagh S/o Biranchi Bagh Aged About 35 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, K.K. Road, Maudhapara, Dist. Raipur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O昀케cer (S.H.O.) P.S.- Cyber Cell, Dist.- Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 229/2025, registered at Police Station : Cyber Cell, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence punishable under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Cyber Police, Raipur registered a cybercrime case on the basis of a complaint KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 received through the “Samanvay” portal operated by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre. The complaint pertains to fraudulent transactions linked to 45 bank accounts maintained with Ratnakar Bank Limited, Raipur Branch (IFSC: RATN0000389), which were allegedly used for receiving illegal funds suspected to be proceeds of cyber fraud. In connection with the said case, the applicant was arrested by Police Station Cyber Police, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. He further submits that the applicant is merely a victim of identity misuse. The applicant/accused is engaged in the business of kabad (waste product recycling) at Maudhapara Road. For the purpose of upgrading his business operations and establishing a new shop, the applicant required a loan of approximately Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs). During this period, a bank employee namely Arun Deep induced the applicant to open an account with RBL Bank, assuring him of assistance in obtaining the said loan. However, the said bank account was subsequently misused by the said Arun Deep without the knowledge or consent of the applicant, due to which the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the identically situated co-accused namely Johan Tandi has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 272/2026, vide order dated 12.01.2026 and further the co- accused namely Nitesh Kumar Sharma, has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 15/2026, vide order dated 07.01.2026. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that similarly situated co-accused, namely Vikas Madhwani, Jitendra Bagh and Priya Sori have already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 16298/2025, 17964/2025 and 19930/2025 respectively vide order dated 18.12.2025. In view of the principle of parity, learned counsel prays that the applicant may also be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, appearing for the State/non-applicant, submit that the charge-sheet has been 昀椀led before the competent Court and the trial is currently in progress. He further concur with the submission made on behalf of the applicant to the e昀昀ect that the principle of parity may be considered, however, he contend that the serious nature of the o昀昀ences, the ongoing investigation and the possibility of in昀氀uencing witnesses weigh against granting bail to the applicant at this stage. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the applicant and the fact that similarly situated co-accused, namely Vikas Madhwani, Jitendra Bagh and Priya Sori have already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 16298/2025, 17964/2025 and 19930/2025 respectively vide order dated 18.12.2025 and further the fact that co-accused namely Johan Tandi has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 272/2026, vide order dated 12.01.2026 and co-accused namely 4 Nitesh Kumar Sharma, has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 15/2026, vide order dated 07.01.2026 and also in the present case, charge-sheet has been 昀椀led before the competent Court therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant on parity. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let applicant, Yogesh Bagh, involved in Crime No. 229/2025, registered at Police Station : Cyber Cell, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence punishable under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, be released on bail on his 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 昀椀le an undertaking to the e昀昀ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 昀椀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 昀椀xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su昀케cient 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, 5 proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date 昀椀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 昀椀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 su昀케cient 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. O昀케ce is directed to send a certi昀椀ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal