YOGESH @ LALLA YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010426742026 2026:CGHC:46640
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 10480 of 2026
Yogesh @ Lalla Yadav Son Of Late Santosh Kumar Yadav, Aged About 21
•
Years R/o Sukwari Bazar, Kaleshwar Mandir, In Front Of Pawan Bhawan,
Police Station Gudiyari, District Raipur, C.G.
... Applicant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Rakhi, Distt. Raipur C.G.
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate
For State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
04.11 .2026
1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who
has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 0157/2025 registered at
Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under
Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of BNS.
2.
Earlier, first bail application i.e. MCRC No. 3588 of 2026 was rejected on
merits vide order dated 16.06.2026.
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),

2
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. He
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

3
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 regular bail application is allowed and 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

4
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.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
$iddhant