Sandeep Khare vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Sandeep Khare, is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 87/2023 registered at Police Station Kirandul for offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 66(D) of the IT Act. The prosecution alleges that the complainant was induced to make online payments for customs, currency conversion, GST, and income tax to release a parcel containing foreign currency. The applicant's bank account was allegedly used to receive Rs. 1,00,100/- from the complainant, which was then transferred to a co-accused. The applicant claims innocence, stating his bank account was operated by a co-accused using his documents without his knowledge. He has been in custody since November 7, 2025. Co-accused have been granted bail.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. It considered the submissions of both parties, the nature of allegations, and the material available. Crucially, the Court noted that no recovery was effected from the applicant's possession. While acknowledging the allegation that the applicant's bank account was used for transactions, it gave significant weight to the fact that co-accused Sachin Sahu, Arvind Kumar, and Vidya Kumar had already been granted bail by this Court. The Court also took into account the applicant's period of custody since November 7, 2025, and the fact that the offences are triable by a Magistrate and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it a fit case to grant bail. The applicant was released on furnishing a personal bond and sureties, subject to several conditions aimed at ensuring his presence during trial and preventing misuse of bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of cheating and cyber fraud, and the material evidence collected by the prosecution? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contends he is innocent and falsely implicated. He argues that his bank account was operated by co-accused Aakash Bansal using his documents, and he was unaware of the transactions. No recovery has been made from him, and the complainant's money was first credited to a co-accused's account before being transferred to his. He relies on the bail granted to co-accused Sachin Sahu, Arvind Kumar, and Vidya Kumar on grounds of parity and the likely delay in trial. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposes the bail application, submitting that an affidavit shows Rs. 1,00,100/- deposited by the complainant was credited to the applicant's account. The applicant's memorandum statement admits he opened the account and handed over the passbook and ATM card to co-accused Akash Bansal, knowing it would be used for routing cyber fraud proceeds. A mobile phone and cash were seized from the applicant.