1 2026:CGHC:15546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3017 of 2026 Sheikh Shoheb S/o Sheikh Salim Aged About 36 Years R/o Durga Chowk Baloda Bazar P.S. City Kotwali, Present Address Dubey Colony Kampa Basti P.S. Mowa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O4cer, Police Station Civil Line, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Hardik Jaiswal, Advocate along with Mr. Ankush Borkar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.04.2026 1 The applicant has preferred this Second 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.129/2025, registered at Police Station – Civil Line Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(3), 3(5) of B.N.S. 2 The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 966/2026 was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 28.02.2026, on merits. Hence this second bail application. 3 The case of the prosecution in brief is that, ASI of P.S. Civil Lines received information on 23.01.2025 from the Ministry of Home A=airs through the Samanvya Portal, as forwarded by the o4ce of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cyber Range, regarding the use of mule accounts for carrying out illegal monetary transactions. It was reported that a total amount of Rs. 64,10,855/- was deposited in 128 bank accounts at the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Branch. It is alleged against the present applicant that he assisted in transferring money into such accounts and therefore, his name has been included in the present case. On a complaint dated 23.03.2025, Police Station Range Cyber, Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) registered Crime No. 129/2025 for o=ences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the present applicant, along with 62 other co-accused persons, was arrested on 27.03.2025. As per the FIR portal, a total of 128 accounts were used for illegal activities. After completion of the investigation, Police Station Range Cyber, Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) has Aled the charge-sheet before the learned trial Court for the aforesaid o=ences. 4 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis 3 of a concocted story. It is contended that similarly placed co- accused persons, including Ishika Singh, whose bail application have been dismissed by this Court and thereafter, they have preferred SLPs before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and they have been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other co- accused such as Avinash Tandekar have also been enlarged on bail by this Court, therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are not attracted, as the applicant has neither committed any organized crime nor had any role in Anancial transactions or operation of bank accounts. The applicant is merely a driver with no criminal antecedents and was misled by one Mohammad Irfan Khan @ Pyaru, who, on the pretext of arranging a loan, obtained his documents and allegedly misused them without his knowledge. No incriminating material such as ATM cards or passbooks has been seized from the applicant. The applicant does not know co-accused Ishika Singh and has neither opened any account for her nor received any commission. It is also submitted that the applicant is in custody for a considerable period, the charge-sheet has already been Aled and therefore no further custodial interrogation is required. Hence, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 5 On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the bail application of the similarly situated co-accused person namely Ajay Sahu, has been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1125/2026, vide order dated 4 12.03.2026, therefore, the bail application of the present applicant is also liable to be rejected. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the o=ence and upon perusal of the case diary, material collected during investigation, as well as the a4davit Aled by the Investigating O4cer in the Arst bail application of the applicant, this Court Ands that the earlier bail application of the present applicant was rejected on merits after detailed consideration of his role in facilitating and operating mule bank accounts used for large-scale cyber fraud. The grounds now urged in this second bail application do not disclose any substantial change in circumstances so as to warrant reconsideration of the earlier order. The material available on record still prima facie indicates active involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged o=ence, which has serious economic ramiAcations and inter-State implications. The contention of parity is also not tenable in view of the fact that bail granted to certain co-accused was on distinguishable grounds, whereas bail applications of other similarly placed co-accused persons have already been rejected by this Court. Considering the magnitude of the o=ence, the organized manner in which the transactions were carried out and the impact on the Anancial system and public at large, this Court is not inclined to take a di=erent view from the earlier order. 5 8 Accordingly, Anding no new ground or change in circumstance, this Court sees no reason to interfere and the present second bail application being devoid of merit is hereby rejected. 9 Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10 O4ce is directed to send a certiAed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal