Sandeep Khare Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The Chhattisgarh High Court considered the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 87/2023 registered at Police Station Kirandul, District South Bastar Dantewada, for offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. According to the prosecution, the complainant was induced by an unknown caller to transfer money on the pretext of customs charges, currency conversion, GST, income tax, and other official fees for the release of a parcel allegedly containing foreign currency. The complainant allegedly transferred substantial sums, including about ₹5,00,000, opened a new bank account, shared bank account and debit card details, and deleted transaction messages after being assured that RBI officials would facilitate the transfer of funds. When additional demands of ₹50,00,000 were made and no money was received, the complainant lodged the complaint.
The applicant submitted that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. It was contended that co-accused Aakash Bansal had opened and operated the applicant’s bank account using his documents, that the applicant neither operated the account nor knew of the transactions, and that no recovery had been effected from his possession. It was further submitted that, according to the charge-sheet, the complainant’s money was first credited to a co-accused’s account before being transferred to the applicant’s account. The applicant also relied on the fact that he had remained in custody since 07.11.2025, that the offences were triable by a Magistrate, and that co-accused Sachin Sahu, Arvind Kumar, and Vidya Kumar had already been granted bail by the High Court on 23.03.2026. Bail was sought on the ground of parity and the likelihood of delay in completion of the trial.
The State opposed the application and relied upon an affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer stating that ₹1,00,100 deposited by the complainant through a cash deposit machine was credited to the applicant’s bank account. The State also referred to the applicant’s memorandum statement, according to which he admitted opening the bank account and handing over the passbook and ATM card to co-accused Akash Bansal despite knowing that the account would be used for routing proceeds of cyber fraud. The State further submitted that a mobile phone and ₹1,500 in cash had been seized from the applicant.
After considering the submissions, the allegations, the material in the case diary, the allegation regarding use of the applicant’s bank account, the absence of recovery from the applicant’s possession, the grant of bail to the co-accused, the applicant’s custody since 07.11.2025, the fact that the offences were triable by a Magistrate, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, the High Court held that it was a fit case for grant of bail without commenting on the merits of the case. The bail application was accordingly allowed.
The Court directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. The order imposed conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses are present, to appear before the trial court on every date either personally or through counsel, to comply with proceedings relating to proclamation and other statutory requirements in case of misuse of bail, and to remain personally present on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 351 of the BNSS. The office was also directed to send a certified copy of the order to the trial court for information and compliance.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
1. This is the 1st 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.87/2023 registered at Police Station – Kirandul, District- South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.), for the offences under Section 420 IPC as also under Section 66 (D) of IT Act.
2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant received a phone call from an unknown person who induced him to make online payments on the pretext of customs charges, currency conversion, GST, income tax and other official fees for the release of a parcel allegedly containing foreign currency. Believing the representations and the fabricated documents sent by the Applicant, the complainant transferred substantial amounts, including about Rs.5,00,000/-. Thereafter, he was persuaded to open a new bank account, share his bank account and debit card details and delete all bank transaction messages on the false assurance that the money would be transferred through RBI officials. When the promised amount was not transferred and further demands for Rs.50,00,000/- were made, the complainant realized that he had been cheated, whereupon the present crime was registered. Accordingly, offences as mentioned above have been 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 case. It is submitted that the bank account in the Applicant’s name was opened and operated by co-accused Aakash Bansal using the Applicant’s documents and the Applicant was neither operating the said account nor aware of the alleged transactions, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the Applicant and as per the charge-sheet, the complainant’s money was first credited to the account of a co-accused and thereafter transferred to the Applicant’s account. It is further submitted that the Applicant is in custody since 07.11.2025, the offences are triable by the Magistrate and the co-accused namely Sachin Sahu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.1247/2026, while Arvind Kumar and Vidya Kumar have also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.1123/2026. It is further submitted that on the ground of parity and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, the Applicant may be enlarged on regular bail.
4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit, which goes to show that, during investigation, it was revealed that an amount of Rs.1,00,100/-, deposited by the complainant through CDM, was credited to the Applicant’s bank account and the affidavit further discloses that in his memorandum statement, the Applicant admitted that he had opened the said bank account and handed over the passbook and ATM card to co-accused Akash Bansal, despite knowing that the account would be used for routing the proceeds of cyber fraud. It is further submitted that a mobile phone and cash amount of Rs.1,500/- were seized from the possession of the Applicant, therefore, the Applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail.
5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the material available in the case diary, the fact that no recovery has been effected from the possession of the present Applicant, the allegation that the Applicant’s bank account was used for the alleged transactions, the fact that the co-accused Sachin Sahu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.1247/2026 and the other co-accused Arvind Kumar and Vidya Kumar have also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.1123/2026, the period of custody of the Applicant since 07.11.2025 and further considering that the offences are triable by the Magistrate and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
6. Let Applicant- Sandeep Khare involved in Crime No. 87/2023 registered at Police Station – Kirandul, District-South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.), for the offences under Section 420 IPC as also under Section 66 (D) of IT Act be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 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 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 trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forth with.
