SATYAM KESHARI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010304772026 2026:CGHC:38416
NAFR
VAIBHAV
SINGH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.09.01
11:07:28 +0530
MCRC No. 7203 of 2026
Satyam Keshari S/o Uday Prasad Keshari Aged About 26 Years R/o
Sattipara Near Sharda Vidyapeeth School, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur
District Surguja C.G. ... Applicant


versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali,
Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. ...Non-applicant

For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
31.08.2026
1. Despite sufficient time having been granted to the State to produce
the affidavit, the same could not be produced
2. This is the first 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.
432/2026 registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Ambikapur District

2
Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) &
317(4) of the BNS.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of information
received from the Cyber Cell regarding a bank account allegedly
linked with complaints of cyber fraud, the present offence was
registered. During the course of investigation, it is alleged that the
applicant had opened certain bank accounts in his own name and
thereafter handed over the account details to co-accused Ayush Sinha
@ Deep, who allegedly used the said bank accounts for receiving the
proceeds of cyber fraud. It is further alleged that, in consideration
thereof, the applicant received a commission of Rs. 4,000/- per bank
account. Thus, the prosecution alleges that the applicant knowingly
facilitated the commission of cyber fraud by providing his bank
accounts for receipt of the alleged proceeds of crime. Hence, the
offence.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and that a perusal of the charge-
sheet prima facie reveals that there is no cogent material connecting
him with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant
has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 10.07.2026 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 11891 of 2026
arising out of Crime No. 325/2024, and the said order, though relating
to a different crime, constitutes an additional circumstance in favour of
the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the very same
bank account had already been disclosed by the applicant in Crime
No. 05/2026 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, in which he has

3
already been granted bail, and therefore, registration of the present
case on the basis of the same bank account does not justify his
continued incarceration. It is also submitted that there is no direct
evidence showing receipt of the alleged cheated amount by the
applicant and the prosecution has only alleged that he provided the
bank account to the co-accused, coupled with a bald allegation of
receiving commission. It is further submitted that the applicant has
already been arrested, the relevant bank account documents are in
possession of the investigating agency and his further custodial
detention is not required. Learned counsel also submits that the
applicant is a young college student and his continued detention
would seriously prejudice his education and future prospects; he is
also the sole earning member of his family and his prolonged
incarceration would cause severe financial hardship to his
dependents. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is a permanent
resident of the address mentioned in the bail application, where his
movable and immovable properties are situated, and there is no
likelihood of his absconding. The applicant is ready to furnish
adequate surety and abide by all the conditions imposed by this
Hon’ble Court; hence, it is prayed that he be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has two
previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant
of regular bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.

4
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and
further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant
has remained in judicial custody since 26.06.2026, and that the
charge-sheet has not yet been filed and the conclusion of the trial is
likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular
bail to the present applicant.
8. Let the Applicant – Satyam Keshari, involved in Crime No. 432/2026
registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Ambikapur District Surguja
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 317(4) of
the BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with
two local 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 his 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

5
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
Vaibhav