1 2026:CGHC:19663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2832 of 2026 Sajjan Kumar Gupta S/o Radheshyam Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Jamira Path Samri, Police Station And Tahsil - Samri, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Vishrampur, District – Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Third 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. 83/2025, registered at Police Station – Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4), 61(2) (A) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the IT Act. 2. Earlier the First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 passed in MCRC No.6036/2025 on merits, and thereafter, he preferred the second bail application and the same was also rejected vide order dated 16.12.2025 passed in MCRC No.9440/2025 on merits. 3. The case of the prosecution, is that a direction was issued by the Office RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 of the Additional Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry into the mule account No. 50200038421730 held by the applicant, Sajjan Gupta, in HDFC Bank. Pursuant to the said direction, the police of Police Station Vishrampur conducted an inquiry with account holders Chandradev Paikra, Kamleshwar Singh, and Rupan Paikra. During the inquiry, they stated that the applicant had advised them to provide their bank account numbers in exchange for receiving a commission. Relying on this assurance, they provided their account details and received certain commission amounts. It was alleged that a total transaction of Rs. 20,39,596/- was made through the said bank account, which was used for the transfer of fraudulent amounts. Complaints regarding the said transactions were lodged in the states of Karnataka and Maharashtra. Hence this offence. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedents registered against the applicant. It is submitted that the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2026 and 16.12.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 10030/2025 and 9232/2025. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 19.04.2025, and so far as the status of the trial is concerned, there are a total of 8 prosecution witnesses out of which only 3 have been examined by the trial Court and the conclusion of the trial shall take time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail, but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused have also been 3 granted bail by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2026 and 16.12.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 10030/2025 and 9232/2025, moreover, the applicant is in jail since 19.04.2025, and so far as the status of the trial is concerned, there are a total of 8 prosecution witnesses out of which only 3 have been examined by the trial Court and the conclusion of the trial shall take time, therefore, I am inclined to allow this third bail application. 8. Accordingly, this third bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let applicant, Sajjan Kumar Gupta, involved in Crime No. 83/2025, registered at Police Station – Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(A) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the IT Act, 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 4 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 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