RAJESHWAR SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010338332026 2026:CGHC:38876
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No.8194 of 2026
Rajeshwar Sahu S/o Banshilal Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village Thakurdiya, P.S. And Tahsil Nawagarh, District - Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station - Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj,
Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.09.2026
nd
1. This is the 2 bail application filed under Section 483 of the
SISTLA
NEELIMA
VISHNU
PRIYA
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular
bail to the Applicant who has been arrested in connection with
Digitally signed by
SISTLA NEELIMA
VISHNU PRIYA
Date: 2026.09.03
10:58:34 +0530

2
Crime No.128/2026 registered at Police Station – Nawagarh,
District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offences under
Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(2)(b), 318(4) and 3(5)
BNS. Earlier application was rejected on merits vide order
dated 10.07.2026 passed in MCRC No.5987/2026.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that during the period from
2019 to 2024, the Applicant, in furtherance of a common
intention with the co-accused, got bank accounts opened in
the names of Gautam Devangan, Nanki God, Tulsi God and
three others at HDFC Bank, Rachabhatha Branch,
Nawagarh, by fraudulent means for receiving proceeds of
cyber fraud and received commission of Rs.15,000/- to
Rs.20,000/- for opening each account. It is further alleged
that an amount of Rs.20,40,244/- received through cyber
fraud was credited into the aforesaid bank accounts between
12.11.2023 and 24.09.2024. Subsequently, the Applicant was
arrested in connection with the alleged offence. Hence, this
application.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present
case and is behind the bars since 23.04.2026. It is further
submitted that the Applicant was arrested on the basis of the
memorandum statement of co-accused Nanki Gond, who has

3
already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order
dated 19.08.2026 passed in MCRC No.6183/2026. It is
further submitted that co-accused Vansh Kumar Dewangan
and Lakhan Lal Sultan have also been granted anticipatory
bail vide orders dated 12.05.2026 and 13.07.2026 passed in
MCRCA Nos.724/2026 and 987/2026 respectively. It is also
submitted that no amount has been recovered from the
Applicant nor has anything incriminating been seized from his
possession and he has remained in custody for about four
months and two days. He further submits that the Applicant’s
14-month-old son has undergone surgery of both eyes and
requires follow-up treatment at Hyderabad and therefore,
considering the period of custody, parity and the overall facts
and circumstances of the case, the Applicant may be
enlarged on bail.
4.
Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that the co-accused have been
granted bail on different facts and circumstances and
moreover, the first bail application of the present Applicant
was rejected on 10.07.2026, i.e., subsequent to the grant of
bail to the said co-accused namely Vansh Kumar Dewangan.
5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel
for the parties, the material available in the case diary and

4
upon perusal of the orders whereby the co-accused persons
were granted bail, this Court finds that the co-accused
persons have been granted bail on different facts and
circumstances and the case of the present Applicant is
distinguishable from that of the said co-accused, therefore, no
ground for grant of bail on the basis of parity is made out and
this Court is of the considered opinion that the Applicant does
not deserve to be released on bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Rajeshwar
Sahu involved in Crime No.128/2026 registered at Police
Station – Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the
offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(2)(b),
318(4) and 3(5) BNS is hereby rejected.
7. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall
make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial
expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with
law, if there is no legal impediment.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the
trial Court concerned for necessary information.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Priya