Manish Rohra vs State Of Chhattisgarh

2026:CGHC:7912 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No.10472 of 2025

Manish Rohra S/o Prakash Rohra Aged About 24 Years R/o House No. 30/289, Gali No. 7, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Ganj, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________

For Applicant :Mr. Pranay Thite, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State :Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board

12.02.2026

1.

The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under

Digitally Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 signed by SISTLA SISTLA NEELIMA for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in NEELIMA VISHNU VISHNU PRIYA PRIYA Date:

2026.02.13 19:47:34 +0530 2

connection with Crime No.79/2025 registered at Police Ganj,

District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 317(2),

317(4), 317(5) and 111 of BNS.

2. Case of the prosecution in short is that on 22.03.2025 the

Station House Officer, Police Station Ganj, Raipur, received a

communication from the Office of the Deputy Superintendent

of Police, Range Cyber Police Station, Raipur, on the basis of

which a report was made and legal action was initiated. The

information, received through the Cyber Coordination Portal

operated by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre

(I4C), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, revealed

that 41 bank accounts maintained at Karnataka Bank, Raipur

Branch were allegedly being used as mule accounts for

receiving proceeds of cyber fraud. It was found that during

the period from 01.01.2025 to 11.01.2025, an amount of

Rs.27,27,556/- was deposited across the said accounts. The

police allege that the account holders knowingly permitted

use of their accounts for receiving and utilising fraudulently

obtained funds. On this basis of these allegations, offences

as mentioned above were registered against the present

Applicant. Hence, this application.

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant

is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present 3

case, who is in jail since 26.03.2025. He further submits that

as the main accused Yash Sharm, who is yet to be arrested,

had taken control of the Applicant's bank account on the

pretext of share trading and misused it for fraudulent

transactions without the Applicant's knowledge or

involvement. It is contended that the Applicant's implication is

based solely on a memorandum statement recorded during

investigation, which is not admissible in evidence and no

incriminating material or property has been seized to connect

the Applicant with the alleged offence. It is further submitted

that the complainant who reported the matter through the

Cyber Crime Portal has not been cited as a witness and no

material is available to establish the Applicant's nexus with

any criminal organization so as to attract Section 111 of the

BNS. He further submits that charge sheet has been filed,

two out of three co-accused i.e. Devansh Dhruw Malkan and

Danka Kameshwar Rao have been granted by this Court vide

orders dated 28.01.2026 and 09.02.2026 passed in

respective M.Cr.C Nos.9659/2025 and 1414/2026 and the

other co-accused namely Bhagwat Prasad Shukla was

enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court vide order dated

16.1.2026; SLP[Crl.] No.20364/2025 and conclusion of trial is

likely to take quite some time, therefore, considering all these 4

aspects, the Applicant may also be granted bail on the

grounds of parity.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the

bail application and submits that there is only one previous

criminal antecedent against the Applicant.

5. Considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for

the parties and after perusing the case diary, this Court finds

that the Applicant is in custody since 26.03.2025 and his

implication appears to be based mainly on the memorandum

statement recorded during investigation, with no incriminating

material having been seized from him. It is also noticed that

similarly placed co-accused persons have already been

granted bail by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, charge sheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial

is likely to take considerable time, therefore, without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and

considering the principle of parity along with the period of

custody, this Court is inclined to allow the application.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

6. Let Applicant- Manish Rohra involved in Crime No.79/2025

registered at Police Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.), for the

offence under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 111 of

BNS be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond 5

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 his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court 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.

7. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the 6

trial Court concerned for necessary information and

compliance forthwith.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya