Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRC/9879/2026 of RUPESH SINHA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 14 October 2026
2026:CGHC:44587 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9879 of 2026 Rupesh Sinha S/o Lala Ram Sinha, Aged About 30 Years R/o Ramsagar Para, Behind Dr. Sahu Gali, Besides Chan Sales, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of
CGHC010405822026
2026:CGHC:44587
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9879 of 2026
Rupesh Sinha S/o Lala Ram Sinha, Aged About 30 Years R/o Ramsagar Para, Behind Dr. Sahu Gali, Besides Chan Sales, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant
: Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State
: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Adv. Gen.
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
Order on Board
15/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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. 157/2025, registered at Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 3588/2026, vide order dated 16.06.2026, on merits. Hence, the present second bail application on the ground of subsequent change in circumstances.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that information was received through the Samanvaya Portal of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), Ministry of Home Affairs, regarding several mule bank accounts maintained in Punjab National Bank, Raipur, which were allegedly used for receiving and transferring money obtained through cyber fraud. During investigation, it was revealed that the accused persons had allegedly procured and facilitated the use of bank accounts, ATM cards, passbooks and other banking credentials for consideration and such accounts were used for routing and concealing proceeds of cyber fraud and online gaming-related transactions. The investigation further revealed that bank account No. 7685000100035258, belonging to the present applicant, reflected credits of ₹17,85,765/- and was allegedly used for receiving and routing proceeds of cyber fraud. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court on merits. However, the present second bail application has been preferred on the ground of subsequent change in circumstances, as the bail applications of co-accused persons, namely, Praveen Soni and Abdul Hidayat Khan, were also rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC Nos. 3086/2026 and
3646/2026, respectively, vide order dated 16.06.2026. Thereafter, the said co-accused persons preferred petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) Nos. 12985/2026 and 13826/2026, respectively and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 02.09.2026, granted them bail. She would further submit that the present applicant is similarly situated and therefore, deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer for grant of bail and submit that the earlier bail application of the present applicant was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court on merits, vide order dated 16.06.2026. However, he could not dispute the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Praveen Soni and Abdul Hidayat Khan, have been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.09.2026 in SLP (Criminal) Nos. 12985/2026 and 13826/2026, respectively.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offences alleged against the applicant and the fact that the bail applications of co-accused persons, namely, Praveen Soni and Abdul Hidayat Khan, were rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC Nos. 3086/2026 and 3646/2026, respectively, vide order dated 16.06.2026, thereafter, the said co- accused persons preferred petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) Nos. 12985/2026 and 13826/2026, respectively and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 02.09.2026, granted them bail, this Court is of the view that the applicant is also entitled to the benefit of parity. Accordingly, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-
(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court;
(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, &
(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. -
S/- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge Kunal