1 2025:CGHC:33844 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5620 of 2025 Rahul Sharma S/o Late Sunil Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o R.D.A. Colony, Kadul Road Boriyakhurd, P.S. Tikrapara, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Cyber Range Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.07.2025 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. 44/2025 registered at Police Station – Cyber Cell Raipur, Raipur, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report at the concerned Police Station alleging that, based on cyber crime information, 104 bank accounts were fraudulently opened and operated in “Utkarsh Small Finance Bank, Branch Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur” (IFSC Code: UTKS0001400), which were RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 used for the purpose of cyber cheating and receiving fraudulent amounts. On the basis of this information, an FIR was registered and investigation was initiated. During the course of investigation, when the account holder failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the suspicious transactions involving a huge amount of Rs. 38,54,812/-, the present applicant was arrested in connection with the said offence and was subsequently sent to judicial custody. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant is engaged in a private job and had opened a bank account with Utkarsh Small Finance Bank, Civil Line Branch, Raipur, District Raipur, solely for the purpose of saving his earnings. It is contended that the applicant had no knowledge of the alleged transactions amounting to Rs. 38,54,812/-, nor did he authorize or conduct any such transactions. The applicant’s mobile number was not linked to the said account, due to which he never received any transaction alerts or messages from the bank. It is further submitted that if the applicant had indeed received such a huge amount, there would have been evidence of its use in acquiring assets such as a car, bike, or house; however, the applicant continues to live in modest conditions and is financially dependent on his mother. It is argued that the prosecution story is false, baseless, and concocted, and there is no material on record to attract the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant has not committed any offence as 3 alleged and is the sole earning member of his family. He also submits that he has no any previous criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 24.01.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present case arises out of a serious economic offence involving cyber fraud. He submits that the applicant is the account holder of a bank account in which suspicious transactions amounting to Rs. 38,54,812/- were carried out, and the said account was one of 104 accounts allegedly used for the purpose of cyber cheating, as revealed in the cyber crime report. He also submits that the allegations to be of serious nature involving organised financial fraud. He also submits that bail application of the other co-accused persons have been rejected by this Court in MCRC Nos. 5363/2025, 2096/2025, 2486/2025 and 2123/2025 and as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on 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, particularly the serious nature of allegations involving large-scale financial fraud through cyber means, and the fact that during investigation it has surfaced that the applicant is the account holder of one of the 104 bank accounts allegedly used for fraudulent transactions, including suspicious deposits amounting to Rs. 38,54,812/-, this Court is of 4 the view that the offence appears to be part of a well-coordinated and organised cyber cheating network, the material collected during investigation prima facie suggests the applicant’s involvement in the said financial irregularities. Furthermore, the contention of false implication is not convincing at this stage, especially in light of the fact that the bail applications of similarly placed co-accused have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC Nos. 5363/2025, 2096/2025, 2486/2025, and 2123/2025. Granting bail in such a matter, where investigation is at a crucial stage and the offence affects public trust in financial systems, may hamper the ongoing proceedings. In view of the gravity of the offence, the stage of investigation, and the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Rahul Sharma, involved in Crime No. 44/2025 registered at Police Station – Cyber Cell Raipur, Raipur, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 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 trail 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 Rahul Dewangan