1 2026:CGHC:19990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3942 of 2026 • Mohit Mandavi S/o Madhav Mandavi Aged About 22 Years R/o 9/836, Gandhi Nagar, Murra Bhatthi, Infront of Dewangan Mandir, Gudhiyari, Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Station House Officer, Civil Line Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station- Civil Line, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(3) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 10207/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2026 on merits. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.05.01 11:08:48 +0530 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that account Nu,ber 60472477295 with bank of Maharashtra Raipur Branch is stated to be in the name of the applicant and mobile number was also associated with the said account and in relation to financial transaction of Rs.95,000/- dated 24.01.2024, an online cyber fraud report was lodged by the complaint Pankaj Kumar alongwith other persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application, earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 10207/2025 was rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 06.02.2026 on merits. He further submits that the applicant has been in jail since 26.03.2025 and has, therefore, undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly one year by the time this bail application is being considered. He also submits that the other co-accused persons namely, Shabbir Khan and Abhinav Nagwanshi, have been granted second bail by this Court in MCRC No. 2640/2026 and MCRC No.3363 of 2026 vide orders dated 23.03.2026 and 15.04.2026, therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co- accused persons have already been granted second bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co- accused. She also submits that the applicant has 11 other complaints in all over India of the similar nature. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused 3 the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that this is the applicant’s second bail application and that the earlier application, MCRC No. 10207/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2026 on merits, further considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 06.03.2025 and has thus undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly one year, further the other co-accused persons namely, Shabbir Khan and Abhinav Nagwanshi, have been granted second bail by this Court in MCRC No. 2640/2026 and MCRC No.3363 of 2026 vide orders dated 23.03.2026 and 15.04.2026, hence this Court is of the considered view that, on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Mohit Mandavi, involved in Crime No.129/2025, registered at Police Station- Civil Line, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(3) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 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 her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court 4 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 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. 9. 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 Vaishali