[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jonsan Semual vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
2026:CGHC:13194
Digitally NAFR
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2573 of 2026
Jonsan Semual S/o Semual Aged About 40 Years R/o G-81, Sant Nagar
Extension Shahpura, Police Station - Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, Permanent
R/o N-18, Ejigbo State Lagosh, Country Nigeria (Passport Republic Of
Ghana) (Particulars Of The Applicant Is Mentioned Correctly)
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer - Dongargaon,
District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicants : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
19/03/2026
1.
This is the Second 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.
189/2024 registered at Police Station- Dongargaon, District-
Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections
318(4) and 3(5) of BNS and Section 66D of I.T. Act.
2. The earlier first bail application of the applicant being MCRC
No.3196 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated
20.05.2025, on merits. Hence, this bail application.
3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that, as per prosecution story in
short - the complainant Apurva Fuljhele lodged a written report
alleging that she has received call from the mobile number
7459052759 namely Alok Deshpandey in respect of the his
marriage, it was stated by the Alok Deshpandey he was working at
UK, it is further alleged that on dated 11.07.2024 she has received
phone call from unknown lady demanded money, thereafter said
Alok Deshpandey obtained total Rs. 15,72,000/- from the
complainant in different date. It is further alleged that in enquiry it
was found that the said mobile number possessed from the present
applicant, thereafter offence under Section 318(4), 3(5) of BNS Act &
Section 66 D of I.T. Act registered against the present applicant as
well as Alok Deshpandey.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no material
evidence available on record to connect him with the alleged offence.
It is contended that the applicant has been arrested merely on the
basis of suspicion and no incriminating article has been seized from
his possession. It is further submitted that, as per the complainant
herself, the alleged amount was transferred to the account of co-
accused Alok Deshpandey and the present applicant is neither the
beneficiary nor directly involved in the transaction. The only
allegation against the applicant is with regard to possession of a
mobile number, which the prosecution has failed to establish as
belonging to the applicant. It is also submitted that this Court, while
dismissing the previous bail application, had directed expeditious
trial within a period of six months, however, despite lapse of almost
nine months, only three out of twelve prosecution witnesses have
been examined and the applicant has been in custody since
11.12.2024. It is further contended that the mother of the applicant is
suffering from old age ailments and the applicant is the sole earning
member of the family, responsible for her care and medical needs. In
absence of any direct or documentary evidence establishing the
involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence, the case against
him is not made out and he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed
in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits
that the present applicant is a resident of the Republic of Ghana and
has three criminal antecedents and is presently residing in Delhi. It is
contended that by creating a false identity on Shadi.com, the
applicant, in connivance with co-accused persons, has committed an
online fraud of Rs. 15,72,000/- with the complainant. It is also
pointed out that the applicant entered India in the year 2018 on a
tourist visa, which expired in the year 2022 and he has continued to
stay thereafter without valid authorization. It is further submitted that
the first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by
this Court in MCRC No. 3196/2025 vide order dated 20.05.2025.
Hence, the present bail application is also liable to be rejected.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the
fact that the first bail application of the applicant has already been
rejected on merits by this Court and that out of 12 prosecution
witnesses, 03 witnesses have already been examined by the learned
trial Court and the grounds urged by learned counsel for the
applicant that the applicant has been arrested merely on the basis of
suspicion, that no incriminating article has been seized from his
possession and his mother is suffering from old age ailments and he
has been in custody since 11.12.2024, do not constitute sufficient
grounds for grant of bail. Further, although this Court had earlier
directed the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of
six months and despite lapse of about nine months the trial has not
yet concluded, the same, in the facts of the present case, cannot be
a ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant namely,
Jonsan Semual, involved in Crime No. 189/2024 registered at
Police Station- Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the
offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of BNS and
Section 66D of I.T. Act., is rejected.
9. Learned trial Court concerned is directed to conclude the trial on day
to day basis under Section 346 of BNSS (corresponding Section 309
of Cr.P.C.), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Kunal
