1 2025:CGHC:51861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8390 of 2025 Moh. Naseeruddin S/o Mr. Zahiruddin Aged About 21 Years R/o Infront Of Gausia Masjid, Opposite Government School, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur P.S. Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer City Kotwali Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ankur Agrawal and Mr. Raza Ali, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.10.2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.45/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.17 15:29:23 +0530 2 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 of the BNS. 2. Prosecution story in brief, is that on the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cyber Range, to take cognizance in respect of mule account holders, which is based on a letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs to stop the usage of accounts for cyber fraud, the respondent police station registered the FIR under the aforesaid sections against unknown persons. Based on the details of the account numbers mentioned in the cyber report, the account holders have been implicated and arrayed as accused persons. It is pertinent to mention here that, at the time of registration of the FIR, the name of the police station was shown as City Kotwali, whereas, in the trial court, the respondent has been shown as Cyber Range. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 24.07.2025, therefore this second bail application is filed on the ground that no direct or specific allegation of any fraudulent or illegal activity has been made against the applicant, and the said amount has already been refunded to Vedant Satish, who has also issued a No Objection Certificate in favour of the applicant. Further, a similarly situated co-accused, namely Mayank Dheevar, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2025. Lastly, though the charge-sheet has already been filed, the trial is yet to commence and the conclusion 3 of the trial is likely to take a long and the applicant is in jail since 26.03.2025, hence, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant also raised the ground that under same set of allegations and charges the other accused having different crime number have been enlarged on bail stating "It is an admitted fact that charges have already been framed but the trial is yet to commence. The appellant is in prison since 08.02.2025. Custodial interrogation of the appellant would obviously not be warranted or necessary at this stage". Similarly in the present case the applicant is in custody since 26.03.2025 and charges are not framed till date and trial is yet to commence, hence the applicants is entitled for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that offence alleged against the applicant involves serious economic crime related to organized cyber fraud, which poses a grave threat to public trust in the financial system. He also submits that the bail application of the other co- accused, persons, namely, Ayush Jethani, Neelam Jethani and Bhavika Harchandani have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5560 of 2025 and 5304 of 2025 vide orders dated 16.07.2025 and 09.07.2025 respectively, therefore, the bail application of the present applicant is also liable to be dismissed. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the above submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, the trial is yet to commence is no good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail as the same would only amount to tempering with the evidence. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail application of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2025 in MCRC No. 5794 of 2025 on the ground that allegations against the applicant are of serious nature involving organized cybercrime and financial fraud, moreover the fact that the bail application of the other co-accused, persons, namely, Ayush Jethani, Neelam Jethani and Bhavika Harchandani have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5560 of 2025 and 5304 of 2025 vide orders dated 16.07.2025 and 09.07.2025 respectively. Furthermore, no good ground has been raised in this second bail application, as such, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 9. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant- Moh. Naseeruddin, involved in Crime No.45/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 of the BNS, is rejected at this stage. 5 10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet