1 2025:CGHC:59267 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8373 of 2025 Shubham Shrivastava @ Monti Lala S/o Ganesh Prasad Shrivastava Aged About 23 Years R/o 46 Shriram Nagar Colony Barkherva Lakhimpur Khiri, Tahsil And District- Lakhimpur (U.P.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O8cer (S.H.O.) Police Station Newai Bhilai Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Gunjan Tiwari, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. This is the Second bail application <led 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. 156/2025 registered at Police Station Newai Thana, District – Durg (C.G.), for the o@ence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. 2. The <rst bail application of the present applicant was dismissed as withdrawn in MCRC No. 6415 of 2025 vide order dated 11.09.2025, with ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.09 11:08:11 +0530 2 liberty to <le afresh. 3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, Namrata Chandrakar, lodged a written complaint against unknown persons stating that certain individuals, pretending to be C.B.I. o8cers, contacted the complainant’s father and informed him that his Canara Bank account (in the name of Shyam Kumar Chandrakar) had been sold to another person named Naresh Goyal, in whose account money-laundering transactions amounting to Rs. 2 Crores had allegedly taken place. The person who made the video call claimed that he would assist in the investigation and obtained personal information from the complainant’s father. It is alleged that the complainant’s father subsequently transferred a total amount of Rs. 54,90,000/- (Fifty-Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand Rupees) between 29.04.2025 and 29.05.2025. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Namrata Chandrakar, the respondent authorities commenced the investigation and proceeded to Lucknow, from where they detained the applicant on 12.06.2025. The applicant was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class/Remand Court, Durg (C.G.) on 14.06.2025, and the learned JMFC, Durg, remanded him to judicial custody. The applicant thereafter <led a bail application under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. before the Court of the IInd Upper Sessions Judge, Durg, on 18.09.2025 for the o@ences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The said bail application was dismissed by the learned IInd Upper Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.). 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits the action of the respondents is in violation of the provisions laid down under Section 58 of the B.N.S.S. and is also violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. She further 3 submits that the respondents illegally detained the applicant without obtaining a transit warrant or transit remand order from the competent Magistrate. The respondents have falsely shown the arrest as having been made within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Chhattisgarh, whereas in fact, the applicant was detained/arrested from Lucknow. She further submits that the applicant has been illegally detained by the respondent authorities since 12.06.2025 and has remained in jail for the last 3 months and 10 days, which is unlawful and unacceptable in the eyes of law. A bare perusal of the entire charge sheet reveals that the call details do not belong to the applicant’s mobile number. The charge sheet was <led by the respondents on 10.09.2025 before the learned trial Court. She submits that no seizure has been made from the applicant except his Aadhaar card and one Apple mobile phone; however, no data corresponding to the said mobile phone or SIM card is annexed with the <nal report, clearly indicating that no call was ever made by the applicant to the complainant. No amount has been recovered from the applicant’s bank account, and even the memorandum statement does not disclose when and from where any alleged amount was remitted to the applicant’s account. She submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he has bee in jail since 12.06.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that in compliance of this Court’s order dated 16.10.2025, the concerned Investigating O8cer has submitted his personal a8davit, stating that the complainant, Namrata Chandrakar, lodged a written complaint against unknown persons alleging that some individuals impersonating CBI o8cers contacted her 4 father, Shyam Kumar Chandrakar, and informed him that his Canara Bank account had allegedly been sold to one Naresh Goyal, in whose name money-laundering transactions worth Rs. 2 Crores had taken place. Under fear and deception, her father transferred a total sum of Rs. 54.90 lakhs between 29.04.2025 and 29.05.2025. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondents commenced investigation, proceeded to Lucknow, detained the petitioner, and produced him before the JMFC, Durg on 14.06.2025, who remanded him to judicial custody. The complainant further stated that, due to the threats and misrepresentation, she transferred funds from her Punjab National Bank account, her father’s account, and her mother’s account into various bank accounts, including ICICI Bank, Bank of Baroda, Yes Bank, Axis Bank, RBL Bank, IndusInd Bank, Union Bank, and Bandhan Bank, amounting to multiple deposits totaling several lakhs. When the accused persons demanded an additional Rs. 22 lakhs, she realized that she was being defrauded. On these allegations, Crime No. 156/2025 was registered at Police Station Newai, District Durg (C.G.) for o@ences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. During investigation, the present applicant was arrested on 30.05.2025. During investigation, the memorandum statement of the accused applicant, Shubham Shrivastava @ Monti Lal, was recorded. He allegedly stated that, through his friend Sohit, he came into contact with Krishna Kumar @ Krish of Lucknow, who, along with Deepak Gupta @ Buddhi @ Babu and Rajesh Vishwakarma @ Raju Painter, assisted in extorting money and facilitating transactions. He further stated that Rs. 9 lakhs were deposited in Rajesh’s Union Bank account (A/c No. 535102010708449) on 29.05.2025, withdrawn through a self-cheque, and distributed as 5 commission to Rajesh, Krishna, and Deepak. From the remaining amount of Rs. 8.64 lakhs, he took his own commission and distributed it among associates known to him as Raj, Faiblo, and Ujjawal. During the investigation, the mobile phone allegedly used in the o@ence, along with the Aadhaar Card and SIM of the applicant, were seized in the presence of witnesses, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the o@ence, the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in compliance with this Court’s order dated 16.10.2025, the concerned Investigating O8cer has submitted his personal a8davit. From its perusal, it appears that the complainant, Namrata Chandrakar, alleged that unknown persons impersonating CBI o8cers deceived her father, Shyam Kumar Chandrakar, by claiming that his Canara Bank account had been sold to one Naresh Goyal and that money-laundering transactions amounting to Rs. 2 crores had been carried out through it. Acting under fear, her family transferred a total of Rs. 54.90 lakhs between 29.04.2025 and 29.05.2025 into various bank accounts. On the basis of her complaint, Crime No. 156/2025 was registered, and during investigation, the applicant was arrested on 30.05.2025. The prosecution further alleges that in his memorandum, the applicant admitted to working with associates in Lucknow, facilitating the deposit of Rs. 9 lakhs into a Union Bank account, withdrawing the amount, and distributing commissions. The applicant’s mobile phone, Aadhaar card, and SIM card were seized during the investigation. Therefore, considering the seriousness of the o@ence, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Shubham 6 Shrivastava @ Monti Lala, involved in Crime No. 156/2025 registered at Police Station Newai Thana, District – Durg (C.G.), for the o@ence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. O8ce is directed to send a certi<ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek