1 2025:CGHC:35854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5794 of 2025 Moh. Naseeruddin S/o Mr. Zahiruddin Aged About 21 Years R/o Infront of Gausia Masjid, Opposite Government School, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, P.S. Tikrapara, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer City Kotwali Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (P.S. Wrongly Mentioned In Order Copy Dated 11-06-2025) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raza Ali, Ali, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.07.2025 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. 45/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and Section 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Prosecution story in brief, is that on the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cyber Range, to take cognizance in respect ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.25 20:50:05 +0530 2 of mule account holders, which is based on a letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs to stop the usage of accounts for cyber fraud, the respondent police station registered the FIR under the aforesaid sections against unknown persons. Based on the details of the account numbers mentioned in the cyber report, the account holders have been implicated and arrayed as accused persons. It is pertinent to mention here that, at the time of registration of the FIR, the name of the police station was shown as City Kotwali, whereas, in the trial court, the respondent has been shown as Cyber Range. 3. The version of the applicant is that the present case is not a case of a mule account against the applicant, as the applicant’s case stands on different footing. A person namely Vedant Satish Shreyaskar had inadvertently (for gaming purposes) deposited an amount of Rs. 1,620/- and Rs. 1,470/- into the account of the applicant, which was not returned initially. To recover the said amount, Vedant Satish Shreyaskar made an online complaint to the cyber cell, due to which the applicant’s account was blocked, and the applicant’s account was included in the list of the cyber cell report. Thereafter, the applicant returned the said amount to Vedant Satish, who has provided a no- objection statement in favour of the applicant. 4. However, since the applicant’s account was reflected in the cyber cell report, the respondent police issued notices to the applicant under Section 94 of the BNSS for an explanation in this regard. In compliance, the applicant appeared before the respondent police and explained the transactions with Vedant Satish. Despite this, the respondent police arrested the applicant and implicated him in the aforesaid offences, although the applicant’s account was only used by 3 Vedant Satish for two transactions, for which the amount was returned and a no-objection was provided by Vedant Satish. The respondent police has falsely implicated the applicant and recorded a false memorandum against him. A copy of the notice under Section 94 of the BNSS is annexed herewith as Annexure A-2, and a copy of the affidavit of Vedant Satish is annexed herewith as Annexure A-3. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant has himself used his account and has not rented or given it to any other person. He submits that two transactions, i.e., of Rs. 1,620/- and Rs. 1,470/-, were made by Vedant Satish inadvertently, and to get back the said amounts, Vedant Satish reported the matter on the online portal of the Cyber Cell, due to which the applicant’s account was also shown in the list of mule accounts. However, no specific allegations regarding the applicant being a mule account holder exist. Furthermore, the said amounts have already been returned to Vedant Satish, and a no-objection has also been given in favour of the applicant. He further submits that another similarly situated person, namely Mayank Dheevar, has been granted bail. A copy of the bail order dated 05.04.2025 is annexed herewith as Annexure A-4. The applicant was working in a travel agency as a staff member, and amounts from different customers were deposited into his account in that regard. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the ingredients of the charges against the applicant. He further submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 26.03.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the 4 applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that offence alleged against the applicant involves serious economic crime related to organized cyber fraud, which poses a grave threat to public trust in the financial system. He also submits that the bail application of the other co- accused, persons, namely, Ayush Jethani, Neelam Jethani and Bhavika Harchandani have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5560 of 2025 and 5304 of 2025 vide orders dated 16.07.2025 and 09.07.2025 respectively, therefore, the bail application of the present applicant is also liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the allegations against the applicant are of serious nature involving organized cybercrime and financial fraud, moreover the fact that the bail application of the other co-accused, persons, namely, Ayush Jethani, Neelam Jethani and Bhavika Harchandani have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5560 of 2025 and 5304 of 2025 vide orders dated 16.07.2025 and 09.07.2025 respectively, therefore, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Moh. Naseeruddin, involved in Crime No. 45/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and Section 111 of 5 the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. 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