1 2025:CGHC:60069 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9374 of 2025 Arjun Soni S/o Moti Soni, Aged About 33 Years Auto Driver, R/o Jhanda Chowk, Pandari Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Tikrapara, District – Raipur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.12.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 229/2025 registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that written complaint was lodged alleging that the applicant along with other co-accused have cheated with him and in total 54 bank accounts a sum of Rs. 21,97,673/- was found to be deposited, and the applicant and other co-accused are said to have involved in the said online fraud. Hence, this application. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case, and there is no evidence on record to prove that the applicant is involved in the online fraud. It is further submitted that the allegations are based entirely on the false allegations, and no directed evidence connects the applicant to the alleged crime. It is further submitted that there is no any previous criminal antecedents of the applicant, and the applicant is in jail since 26.03.2025, and the trial is likely to take quite long time, hence, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that from the perusal of the case-diary it transpires that investigation has revealed that the applicant deliberately opened RBL Bank account No. 309023925155 using his own KYC credentials and willingly handed over the entire bank kit, including the registered SIM, ATM card, internet banking username and password, to co-accused Gopal Tandi in exchange for an unlawful monetary consideration of Rs.5,000/-, fully aware that it would be used for cybercrime. The said account was thereafter used as a mule account to receive and route cyber-fraud proceeds, as demonstrated by suspicious transactions totaling Rs.39,16,561/- and two separate fraud complaints registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal/1930 linked directly to this account. 5. Leanred State counsel further submits that despite issuance of statutory notices under Sections 35(3) and 94 of B.N.S.S., the 3 applicant has failed to produce any documents relating to the opening, operation, or sale of the account or the money received from such sale, thereby showing deliberate non-cooperation and an attempt to conceal material evidence. His conduct reflects conscious participation in an organized cyber crime network that operates by procuring KYC-complaint bank accounts and using them to launder proceeds of fraud committed against innocent citizens nationwide. Several co-accused, including the primary beneficiaries, are still absconding, and release of the applicant at this crucial stage will seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation, enable him to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and abscond from the legal process. So far as the co-accused persons are concerned, their bail applications have already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 6376/2025, 6895/2025 and 6576/2025. As such, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From the perusal of the records as well as the bail rejection order of the trial Court concerned, and considering the overall incriminating facts and circumstances emerging from the case diary, it is evident that the material collected during the investigation prima facie establishes the applicant’s conscious, deliberate, and active involvement in the organized cyber-fraud syndicate. The applicant knowingly used his own identity documents to open RBL Bank account No. 309023925155, and thereafter intentionally sold the 4 account to co-accused Gopal Tandi for monetary gain, thereby providing a legitimate KYC-compliant financial gateway for the transfer, diversion, and concealment of one of the most critical elements of the fraud—its proceeds. The account in question received suspicious deposits amounting to Rs. 39,16,561/- within an unusually short period, corroborating its exclusive use as a mule account by cyber offenders. Further, the presence of two separate cyber-fraud complaints lodged on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal/1930 linked directly to this account reinforces the applicant’s complicity. His refusal to produce any account-related documents despite repeated statutory notices, his failure to account for the money he received from selling the bank account, and his non-cooperation in assisting the police to trace absconding co- accused reflect a clear intention to obstruct the investigation and suppress the truth. The applicant’s conduct demonstrates not merely passive negligence but an active, deliberate, and profit- motivated role in enabling a sophisticated cybercrime operation causing financial loss to unsuspecting citizens. So far as the co- accused persons are concerned, their bail applications have already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 6376/2025, 6895/2025 and 6576/2025. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, this first bail application of applicant – Arjun Soni, involved in Crime No. 229/2025 registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under 5 Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 111 of the BNS, is rejected at this stage. 9. Needless to say that the learned trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 10. 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 Rajshekhar