1 2025:CGHC:20966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3524 of 2025 Gopal Agrawal S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o Ashish Sai's House, In Front Of Tanishri Traders, Near Chilfi Heights, Bhavna Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Cyber Range Police Station, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Fir Was Registered Before P.S. Gudhiyari But Investigated By P.S. Cyber Range) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.05.2025 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. 17/25 registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. According to the prosecution's story, Complainant Umakant Verma, a Grade-2 employee at Loco Shed in Bilaspur, lodged a complaint stating that between 17.03.2024, and 27.09.2024, he was deceived by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.05.08 12:14:45 +0530 2 an unknown accused person through WhatsApp messages from mobile number 9690047185. The accused promised Verma that he could earn money by performing tasks, such as liking Amazon products, and receiving Rs. 50 cashback per like, along with a 30% profit on prepaid tasks. Mr. Verma allegedly lost Rs. 50,00,000/- across different accounts and dates. Following the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet. The allegation against the applicant is that, at the behest of his neighbor Prateek Jain, he sold his bank account to Vinod Rathod, a resident of Korba, Chhattisgarh, and received Rs. 2,00,000/- from Prateek Jain. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant did not commit any fraud with Umakant Verma, the complainant in the case. Notably, the complainant was not deceived by the applicant, and the applicant did not receive any amount from Umakant Verma in his bank account. He also submits that the applicant has no connection, direct or indirect, with the mobile number, bank account number, or WhatsApp group mentioned in the FIR registered by Umakant Verma. Even if the prosecution's case is accepted, the applicant's role is, at most, that of a witness. However, the applicant was arrested by the Cyber Range Police Station in a purportedly false and malicious manner, based solely on suspicion and the statement of another accused, with no recovery made from the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 04.04.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail 3 application, submitting that the allegation against the applicant is that, at the behest of his neighbor, Prateek Jain, he sold his bank account to Vinod Rathod, a resident of Korba, Chhattisgarh, and received Rs. 2,00,000/- from Prateek Jain. Therefore, it is alleged that the applicant participated in the online fraud, hence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the allegation against the applicant is that, at the behest of his neighbor Prateek Jain, he sold his bank account to Vinod Rathod, a resident of Korba, Chhattisgarh, and received Rs. 2,00,000/- from Prateek Jain, hence the applicant has participated in the alleged online fraud, therefore, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Gopal Agrawal, involved in Crime No. 17/25 registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office 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 Abhishek