1 2025:CGHC:52592 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8519 of 2025 Ajay Kumar S/o Natthu Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Rukhala, Post Rukhala, Police Station Chharra, Aligarh (U.P.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O/cer, Police Station Vidhansabha Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.10.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 64/2023, registered at Police Station Vidhansabha, District : Raipur (C.G) for the o=ence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, namely, Leeladhar Yadav, submitted a written complaint on 14.02.2023 addressed to the Station House O/cer, Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur (C.G.). In his written complaint, he stated that between 11.02.2023 to 12.02.2023, he received several phone calls on his mobile ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.29 11:28:19 +0530 2 from unknown numbers, wherein the caller impersonated a Senior Judge and informed him that he was unable to transfer money as his PhonePe application was not opening. The caller requested the complainant to make the transfer on his behalf and assured that the amount would be returned later. Believing the caller, the complainant scanned the QR code sent to him and, through his savings account in the State Bank of India, NTPC Jamnipali, Korba, made payments via PhonePe and Google Pay, amounting to a total of Rs. 2,93,997/-. However, the said amount was never returned, and the complainant realized that he had been cheated. On the basis of the complaint lodged, Police Station Vidhansabha, Raipur, registered Crime No. 64/2023 for the o=ence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and initiated investigation. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that on 11.02.2023, amounts of Rs. 17,900/-, Rs. 31,000/-, and Rs. 45,000/- (total ₹93,900/-) were credited into HDFC Bank Account No. 50100596302286, IFSC Code HDFC0000279, registered with mobile number 8810803223. Further, on 12.02.2023, amounts of Rs. 49,999/- and Rs. 99,999/- (total Rs. 1,49,998/-) were credited into Punjab National Bank Account No. 1015001700210547, IFSC Code PUNB0101500, thereby making a total of Rs. 2,43,898/-. Upon veriEcation, both the aforesaid bank accounts were found to be registered in the name of the present applicant, Ajay Kumar, S/o Natthu Singh, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Rukhala, Post Rukhala, Police Station Chharra, District Aligarh (U.P.), PIN Code 202134. The present applicant was served with a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C., and upon interrogation in the presence of witnesses, his memorandum statement was recorded. After completion of the investigation, the Enal charge-sheet was prepared, and the challan was Eled before the concerned Court on 11.09.2025. 3 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. He further submits that the applicant has not committed any act that falls within the category of an o=ence. In reality, the applicant maintains only one bank account in his name with the State Bank of India. Apart from this, he has no other account in any other bank. As per the investigating o/cer himself, the bank accounts shown in the name of the applicant are not his accounts, and the applicant has never opened any such accounts. He further submits that the bank accounts used in the present case - HDFC Bank Account No. 50100596302286 and Punjab National Bank Account No. 100150017100210547 - were not opened by the applicant. In connection therewith, the applicant submitted written applications before the concerned banks, stating that these accounts, though opened in his name, were fraudulently created by some other person using the mobile number 8810803223 and email ID sraghvendea@gmail.com. The applicant further stated that the KYC veriEcation for these accounts was done through online OTP authentication, regarding which he had no knowledge or involvement. He further submits that the applicant was served with a notice by the Range Cyber Police Station, Raipur, for the Erst time, after which he appeared before the Investigating O/cer and submitted a written application dated 18.06.2025, explaining the true facts regarding the accounts opened in his name. However, the Investigating O/cer ignored this material fact and, in order to avoid detailed investigation, falsely implicated the present applicant as an accused. He also submits that the applicant runs a grocery store in Aligarh, and near his shop, there is a Punjab National Bank Customer Service Center and a KYC Center. For the purpose of opening his State Bank account, the applicant had submitted his Aadhaar Card and PAN 4 Card at the said center. The applicant suspects that his personal details and documents were misused to fraudulently open accounts in Punjab National Bank and HDFC Bank. As the applicant’s grocery store is located beside the Punjab National Bank Customer Service Center, he had provided his credentials there for the purpose of opening his State Bank account, which were later misused by the said center. He submits that the applicant’s father, on 05.08.2025, submitted written information to the Senior Superintendent of Police and the Inspector General of Police, stating that the applicant’s personal details and documents had been misused, and fake bank accounts had been opened. The applicant had duly informed the police authorities regarding the aforesaid fraudulent act, but instead of conducting a fair investigation, the applicant has been wrongfully implicated merely to complete formalities. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he has been in jail since 15.07.2025, 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 present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been Eled before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant fraudulently obtained a total amount of Rs. 2,93,997/- from the complainant by portraying himself as a Senior Judge. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the o=ence, the present applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the present applicant fraudulently obtained a total amount of Rs. 5 2,93,997/- from the complainant by portraying himself as a Senior Judge, looking to nature and gravity of the o=ence, it does not seem appropriate to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Ajay Kumar, involved in Crime No. 64/2023, registered at Police Station Vidhansabha, District : Raipur (C.G) for the o=ence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. O/ce is directed to provide a certiEed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek