1 2025:CGHC:35456 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1082 of 2025 Nikhil Shriwas S/o Ramgopal Shriwas Aged About 21 Years R/o Pump House, Korba, Chowki C.S.E.B., P.S. Civil Line, Rampur, District Korba C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur, District Korba C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aakash Aahuja, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 23/07/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suruksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.67/2025, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur, District Korba (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) (A), 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the Cyber Cell, Korba, received a letter from the Civil Lines Police Station, Rampur, for taking action. The letter stated that a list of mule bank accounts was obtained from a bank through the coordination portal operated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Upon reviewing the list, it was found that the bank accounts of the account holders had received amounts from cyber frauds committed in different states of the country. The original account holders' list included accounts from Indusind Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, SBI Bank, PNB Bank, Punjab and Sindh Bank, Au Bank, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, and Bank of Baroda, where money was illegally transacted. A total of 26 account holders were involved in cyber frauds amounting to Rs.8,88,850/- committed against numerous people in different states. The accounts received online fraud amounts. Based on this, a case was registered against the applicant/accused under Sections 318(4) and 61(2)(a) at the Civil Lines Police Station, Rampur. Hence, the anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that some of the co-accused persons have been granted bail by the learned Sessions Court, copies of which are annexed as Annexure A/2 and some of the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court, copies of which are annexed as Annexure A/3. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to demonstrate that the applicant had the necessary mens rea to commit or aid in the alleged cyber fraud. Simply receiving funds in a 3 bank account is insufficient to infer intentional criminal participation in a conspiracy without additional incriminating evidence, such as communication records, financial benefits, or active involvement. Despite the technical nature of the cyber crime, no digital evidence, such as call records, IP logs, email/chat transcripts, device data, or CCTV footage, has been presented to establish that the applicant was actively operating or directing the transactions in question. He also submits that the applicant opened and operated his bank account through proper Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures, as mandated by the Reserve Bank of India, demonstrating no concealment of identity, which is often a crucial factor in mule account cases. The bank did not flag the account during its operation, suggesting no suspicious activity on the applicant's part. There is a strong likelihood that the applicant's bank account was exploited by organized fraudsters without his full knowledge. Cyber syndicates often use social engineering tactics or fraudulent schemes to gain access to innocent citizens' accounts. Without clear evidence of collusion, it cannot be conclusively determined that the applicant is responsible. Hence he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the Cyber Cell, Korba, received a letter from the Civil Lines Police Station, Rampur, for taking action against the mule account holder, the letter stated that a list of mule bank accounts was obtained from a bank through the coordination portal operated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, 4 Government of India. Upon reviewing the list, it was found that the bank accounts of the account holders had received amounts from cyber frauds committed in different states of the country, money was illegally transacted, total 26 account holders were involved in cyber frauds amounting to Rs.8,88,850/- committed against numerous people in different states, after committed the alleged crime, the applicant absconded, charge-sheet has been filed against him as an absconder. Therefore, present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy, it prima facie appears that the applicant is involved in a serious cyber crime offense, the investigation revealed that the bank account of the accused / applicant demonstrate suspicious transactional activity suggestive of his involvement in the organized cyber crime, the bank accounts of the account holders had received money from cyber frauds perpetrated in various states across the country, a list of mule bank accounts was obtained from a bank through the coordination portal operated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, wherein money was illicitly transacted, total 26 account holders were implicated in cyber frauds amounting to Rs.8,88,850/-, committed against multiple individuals in different states, the investigation further revealed that the accused / applicant entered into 5 a conspiracy to illicitly obtain financial benefits by misappropriating their bank accounts for the purpose of perpetrating online fraud, also considering the fact that after committing the alleged offence, the applicant absconded, charge-sheet has been filed against him as an absconder, his continuous abscondence has caused unnecessary delays in the investigation, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 7. 7. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, reported in {(2014) 2 SCC 171}, has observed that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Nikhil Shriwas, involved in Crime No.67/2025, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur, District Korba (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2)(A), 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil