1 2026:CGHC:12480 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2378 of 2026 1 - Banke Bihari Nishad S/o Gopal Ram Nishad Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Sangharsh Chowk, Shankar Nagar, Nayapara Gobra, P.S. Gobra Nayapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Kunjbihari S/o Gopal Ram Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Sangharsh Chowk, Shankar Nagar, Nayapara Gobra, P.S. Gobra Nayapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicants(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O3cer, Police Station - Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicants(s) For Applicants : Mr. Amitabh Verma, Advocate along with Ms. Anju Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicants/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/03/2026 1. This is the 9rst bail application 9led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 145/2025 registered at Police Station- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Sections KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(A) and 3(5) of the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.05.2025, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) registered Crime No. 145/2025. It is alleged in the FIR that, based on reliable information received through the Coordination Portal operated by the Ministry of Home A=airs, Government of India, the police investigated a mule bank account racket. During the course of investigation, seven mule bank accounts were identi9ed in the Bank of Maharashtra, Rajim Branch (C.G.), and transactions amounting to Rs. 4,16,96,238/- were found to be related to the crime committed by unknown persons. The allegation against the present applicants is that certain transactions were re@ected in their bank accounts bearing No. 605093400556 and 60509274354 maintained with the Bank of Maharashtra. It is further alleged that, out of greed, they provided their bank accounts to other persons and received commission/dividends in return. Based upon such, aforementioned o=ences were registered against the applicants along with co- accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the bail application of co-accused Mohnish Kumar Tandiya was earlier rejected by this Court, however, he preferred SLP (Crl.) No. 18750/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 22.01.2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been granted bail to him. It is also submitted that another similarly situated co-accused, namely Pawan Kumar Miri, has been 3 granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 985/2026, vide order dated 29.01.2026. The applicants is in judicial custody since 18.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, on the ground of parity and prolonged detention, the applicants prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, appearing for the State/non-applicants, submit that the charge-sheet has been 9led before the competent Court and the trial is currently in progress. She further concur with the submission made on behalf of the applicants to the e=ect that the principle of parity may be considered, however, she contend that the serious nature of the o=ences, the ongoing investigation and the possibility of in@uencing witnesses weigh against granting bail to the applicants at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the bail application of co-accused Mohnish Kumar Tandiya was earlier rejected by this Court, however, he preferred SLP (Crl.) No. 18750/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 22.01.2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been granted bail to him and further considering the fact that another similarly situated co-accused, namely Pawan Kumar Miri, has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 985/2026, vide order dated 29.01.2026 and the applicants are in judicial custody since 18.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time and in the present case, charge-sheet has been 4 filed before the competent Court and the applicants have no criminal antecedents thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants are allowed. 8. Let the applicants – Banke Bihari Nishad and Kunjbihari, involved in Crime No. 145/2025 registered at Police Station- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(A) and 3(5) of the BNS., be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall 9le an undertaking to the e=ect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 9xed 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date 9xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without su3cient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on 5 the date 9xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 9xed 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 applicants are deliberated 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 them in accordance with law. 9. O3ce is directed to send a certi9ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal