1 2025:CGHC:48107 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5745 of 2025 Preetam Singh S/o Shobhnath Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Silfilli P.S. - Jainagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Bishrampur (Wrongly Mentioned As (Jainagar), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.09.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 95/2025, registered at Police Station : Bishrampur, District : Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 413, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Center received multiple complaints from across India regarding fraudulent transactions through several mule accounts RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and forwarded the report to the Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters. During the investigation, the name of the present applicant surfaced in connection with online cyber record acknowledgment numbers 22911230070666, 31501240000986, 31604240026161, 31912230080923, and 33703240014498, as it was found that a sum of Rs. 61,580/- was credited to his account No. 922020063952460 at Bishrampur Branch, District Surajpur. Based on these findings, offences were registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant as alleged in the FIR, which was lodged only due to pressure exerted by the family of the prosecutrix. It is contended that the applicant has no role in the alleged crime and has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of the last seen theory, without any eye-witness account. The applicant has neither cheated nor deceived anyone, and therefore, offences under Sections 420, 413, and 120-B of the IPC are not attracted. It is further submitted that the alleged incident took place between 24.11.2023 and 11.01.2024, whereas the FIR was registered much later on 07.05.2025, and during this long delay, the amount credited to the applicant’s account was never blocked, which clearly raises doubts about the veracity of the allegations. The prosecution has failed to establish any specific role of the applicant, as there has been no seizure of any incriminating material or collection of evidence connecting him to the alleged offence, except for the 3 seizure of his Aadhaar card. He also submits that the present applicant has only 01 criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 08.05.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that during investigation it was revealed that the applicant, along with his associates, was actively involved in a cyber fraud case. The applicant’s bank account was found to have received Rs. 61,580/- through fraudulent transactions from different states, as per multiple complaint acknowledgments. It is further submitted that the applicant, in his memorandum statement, admitted that he and co- accused Vikesh Giri opened bank accounts and handed them over to another co-accused, Ashok Giri, for laundering defrauded money. While the applicant and Vikesh Giri have already been arrested and are in custody, Ashok Giri is absconding, and efforts are being made to trace him. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, though the allegations against the applicant are that his bank account received Rs. 61,580/- through fraudulent transactions from different states and, in his memorandum statement, he admitted that he and co-accused Vikesh Giri had opened bank accounts and 4 handed them over to another co-accused, Ashok Giri, for laundering defrauded money, it is noted that the applicant and Vikesh Giri have already been arrested and are presently in custody, while Ashok Giri remains absconding and efforts are ongoing to trace him, further the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and he has no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 08.05.2025, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Preetam Singh, involved in Crime No. 95/2025, registered at Police Station : Bishrampur, District : Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 413, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him, in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan