1 2025:CGHC:13074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2164 of 2025 Govind Yadav S/o Shri Vijay Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Behind Mahobiya Primary School Hanuman Nagar, Mathpara, Raipur, P.S. Tikrapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Range Cyber Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.03.2025 1. This is the First 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. 25/2025 registered at Police Station- Range Cyber, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant has made written complaint before the concerned police station with the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 averment that the accused persons have transferred some amount of the complainant in their bank account through forged documents but the same has not been done and not returned to him. Based upon the written complaint, the police has registered the offence under Section 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicant for the aforesaid offences on the basis of merely suspicious. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant has neither been transferred any amount in his account nor committed cheating and fraud with the complainant nor committed any aforesaid offences as alleged by the prosecution against him and he has falsely been implicated in this case and the allegation made by the complainant is false and baseless against applicant. He also submits that no prove of allegation made against the applicant and there is no eye witness in this case against him and only on the basis of merely suspicious, the complainant has made false complaint against the present applicant based upon the false and fabricated allegation. He further submits the applicant is in jail since 24.01.2025 and the conclusion of the trial may likely to take some more time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submits that from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the complainant received a link on Facebook promising double returns on investment in cryptocurrency. 3 Unidentified individuals contacted him through this link, asking him to deposit money into his bank account. Complainant deposited ₹1,70,000/-, but later realized it is a cyber scam. The accused Govind Kumar Yadav was also served notice, and his statement was recorded. The applicant claimed he shared his bank account information with his friend Pulkit Kukreja, who used it for online fraud. The accused's involvement is clear and granting bail would not be justified. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and further from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the complainant received a link on Facebook promising double returns on investment in cryptocurrency. Unidentified individuals contacted him through that link, asking him to deposit money into his bank account thereafter, the complainant deposited ₹1,70,000/-, but later realized it is a cyber scam. The applicant Govind Kumar Yadav was also served notice, and his statement was recorded. The applicant claimed that he shared his bank account information with his friend Pulkit Kukreja, who used it for online fraud. The involvement of the applicant appears to be reasonable and granting bail to the applicant would not be justified. 6. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Govind Yadav filed under Section 483 of the BNSS involved in Crime No. 25/2025 registered at Police Station- Range Cyber, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC, is rejected. 4 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE kunal