1 2025:CGHC:37745 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5994 of 2025 Ajay Kumar Mandal S/o Jay Prakash Mandal Aged About 29 Years Chandana, District- Sonaryathdi, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO, Police Station - Cyber Cell, Bhilai, Durg, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Samdarsh Nirankari, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 31.07.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 5/2024, registered at Police Station- Cyber Cell, Bhilai, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 66D of I.T. Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that an FIR was registered on 26.11.2024 against unknown persons, approximately five months after the incident, alleging that between 19.06.2024 and 26.06.2024 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the complainant had received calls from five different phone numbers – 7857991870, 9007131081, 7643881386, 9229450911, and 9153528536 – on his own phone number 9827461280, wherein the callers requested renewal of his credit card and enhancement of its limit. It is further alleged that a WhatsApp message containing a link was sent to him from the number 7857991870, and upon updating through the said link, a total amount of ₹1,89,450.77 (Rupees One Lakh Eighty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Fifty and Seventy-Seven Paise) was fraudulently deducted from his AU Finance Bank credit card no. 4665051032946221 and ICICI Bank credit card no. 4375519592318008. The present applicant was subsequently taken into custody by the Chhattisgarh Police on 07.03.2025, and thereafter the charge-sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the FIR in the instant case was lodged nearly five months after the alleged incident and, significantly, against unknown persons. He also submits that no seizure has been made of any SIM cards corresponding to the phone numbers from which the complainant allegedly received calls or the WhatsApp link, nor have such numbers been connected to the applicant. He further submits that the charge-sheet does not contain any Call Detail Records (CDRs) to establish that the complainant actually received the alleged calls on his number, nor does it include the complainant’s credit card statements to substantiate the amount 3 deducted, the specific dates of such deductions, or whether any objections were raised with the respective banks at the relevant time. He further argued that no bank account details or statements of the present applicant have been seized or produced to indicate any receipt of the alleged fraudulent amounts. The investigation, therefore, is lacking in material particulars and fails to establish even a prima facie case against the applicant; under such circumstances, continuing his incarceration would amount to a travesty of justice. He also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, he has no previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 07.03.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, involving a well-planned cyber fraud wherein the complainant was induced through multiple phone calls and a fraudulent WhatsApp link to share sensitive information, resulting in an unauthorized withdrawal of ₹1,89,450.77 from two credit cards. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged after the complainant discovered the fraudulent transactions, and during investigation sufficient material has been collected against the applicant, leading to the filing of the charge- sheet and his involvement has been prima facie established from the call records and digital evidence seized during investigation. He also submits that the present applicant has 01 previous criminal 4 antecedent under the similar nature in the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the allegations against the applicant pertain to a serious offence of cyber fraud, wherein the complainant was deceived through multiple phone calls and a fraudulent WhatsApp link, resulting in the misappropriation of a substantial sum of ₹1,89,450.77 from two different credit cards. The investigation has revealed prima facie material indicating the involvement of the applicant, and the charge- sheet has already been filed. Further the present applicant has 01 previous criminal antecedent under the similar nature in the State of Jharkhand. The nature and gravity of the offence, coupled with the modus operandi adopted, suggest that the act was premeditated and part of a larger fraudulent scheme. Hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Ajay Kumar Mandal, involved in Crime No. 5/2024, registered at Police Station- Cyber Cell, Bhilai, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 66D of I.T. Act, is rejected. 5 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