1 2025:CGHC:37920 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6036 of 2025 Sajjan Kumar Gupta S/o Radheshyam Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Jamira Path Samri, Police Station And Tahsil- Samri, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station, Vishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G. ) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 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. 83/2025 registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4), 61(2), (A) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.04 11:04:38 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, a direction was issued by the Office of the Additional Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry into the mule account No. 50200038421730 held by the applicant, Sajjan Gupta, in HDFC Bank. Pursuant to the said direction, the police of Police Station Vishrampur conducted an inquiry with account holders Chandradev Paikra, Kamleshwar Singh, and Rupan Paikra. During the inquiry, they stated that the applicant had advised them to provide their bank account numbers in exchange for receiving a commission. Relying on this assurance, they provided their account details and received certain commission amounts. It was alleged that a total transaction of Rs. 20,39,596/- was made through the said bank account, which was used for the transfer of fraudulent amounts. Complaints regarding the said transactions were lodged in the states of Karnataka and Maharashtra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant did not receive any commission for using his bank account to collect online fraud money. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent court, and a bare perusal of the entire charge-sheet reveals that there is no material available on record that may indicate the involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the alleged crime. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 19.04.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the present applicant 3 allegedly advised Chandradev Paikra, Kamleshwar Singh, and Rupan Paikra, account holders of HDFC Bank, to share their bank account details in exchange for a commission. Pursuant to this, fraudulent transactions amounting to Rs. 20,39,596/- were allegedly routed through the said accounts, resulting in related complaints being lodged in Karnataka and Maharashtra, therefore, the present 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 present applicant allegedly advised Chandradev Paikra, Kamleshwar Singh, and Rupan Paikra, account holders of HDFC Bank, to share their bank account details in exchange for a commission. Pursuant to this, fraudulent transactions amounting to Rs. 20,39,596/- were allegedly routed through the said accounts, resulting in related complaints being lodged in Karnataka and Maharashtra, therefore, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Sajjan Kumar Gupta, involved in Crime No. 83/2025 registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4), 61(2), (A) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 4 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