1 2025:CGHC:59727 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10106 of 2025 Bobby Khatri S/o Mahesh Khatri, Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. Q-24, Street No. 7, Om Vihar Colony, Telibandha, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Civil Lines, District – Raipur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.12.2025 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. 129/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an FIR was registered on 23.03.2025 vide Crime No. 129/2025 in Police Station Civil Lines, District: Raipur(C.G.) under Section 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of BNS against 128 Account holders of Bank of Maharastra Raipur Branch, based on information removed through Samanvay Portal operated by Ministry of Home affairs, Government of India, and applications from Police Station Civil Lines and Cyber Police station RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.). Based on the information received through the Samanway Portal, the FIR further alleges that Rs. 6,410,855 was received in the accounts mentioned in the FIR, which was obtained through cyber fraud and constituted proceeds of crime and FIR against the account holders. The present applicant has been arrested solely on the basis of WhatsApp chats and his name is neither mentioned in the FIR nor in the information received by the police through the portal. However, the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in crime in question just on the basis of suspicion from the WhatsApp chats. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. It is further submitted that the co-accused Ishika Sharma has been granted bail in the same crime number by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No. 13678/2025 vide order dated 13.10.2025. It is further submitted that no incriminating material or proceeds of crime have been recovered from the applicant. The entire case is based on statements and assumptions without any direct material evidence against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 16.09.2025, and the conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time. Therefore, 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 the material collected during the course of 3 investigation clearly demonstrates the applicant’s active and conscious involvement in a well-organized cyber-crime network operating through mule bank accounts. The applicant is directly involved in a cyber-crime racket involving the procurement, sale, and misuse of mule bank accounts used for receiving large amounts of defrauded money obtained through cyber fraud from unsuspecting victims nationwide. Investigation has revealed that the present offence concerns 128 fraud-linked bank accounts opened and used for siphoning illegal proceeds, and the applicant’s role is central, deliberate, and indispensable in the fraudulent chain. 5. Learned State counsel further submits the specific bank account 60471936262 of Bank of Maharashtra, linked to the applicant, was found to have been registered with a mobile number belonging to co-accused Nikhil Chawla, who categorically stated in his memorandum that he sold this and many other fraud-linked accounts to the applicant, Bobby Khatri, for monetary benefits. From the applicant’s own memorandum, it has emerged that he consciously procured 15–20 bank accounts from co-accused Nikhil and resold them to one Suraj Mandhani for Rs. 15,000/- per account, retaining Rs. 5,000/- profit per account, which shows a clear, intentional, and repeated participation in illegal financial operations facilitating cyber fraud at a large scale. These acts demonstrate that the applicant knowingly participated in the business of purchasing and selling bank accounts that were being used to channel cyber-crime proceeds. 6. Learned State counsel further argued that despite issuance of 4 notices under Sections 35(3) and 94 of the B.N.S.S., the applicant failed to provide any valid documents regarding the bank account, the extraordinary financial transactions, or the consideration received from the sale of the accounts, thereby demonstrating non- cooperation, deliberate withholding of evidence, and an attempt to obstruct the investigation. The applicant's conduct shows that he is part of a wider network of cyber offenders operating through mule accounts, and several co-accused persons including the main handler, Suraj Mandhani, are still absconding, making the applicant’s release extremely detrimental to the ongoing investigation. So far as the other co-accused persons are concerned, there bail application have already been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 12.09.2025 and 31.10.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 7344/2025 and 8661/2025, and order dated 17.11.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 9224/2025, 8714/2025, 8228/2025, 9209/2025 and 9197/2025, order dated 18.11.2025 passed in MCRC No.9254/2025, and order dated 21.11.2025 passed in MCRC No.9441/2025, respectively. As such, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. 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 5 involvement in the organized cyber-fraud syndicate. The role of the applicant stands firmly established as integral to the cyber-fraud operation in question. The applicant has not only admitted in his memorandum that he procured 15–20 bank accounts from co- accused Nikhil Chawla but has further confessed that he resold these accounts to principal handler Suraj Mandhani for unlawful consideration, thereby directly enabling the transfer, layering, and concealment of proceeds of cybercrime. The account bearing No. 60471936262, which forms the subject matter of the present case, was likewise procured and sold by the applicant, functioning as a mule account for routing fraudulently obtained funds from victims reporting through the national Cyber Crime Portal. 9. Moreover, the applicant’s actions were not isolated or inadvertent; rather, they reveal a systematic, repeated, and profit-oriented involvement in the illegal trade of bank accounts, demonstrating clear knowledge that these accounts were being used as conduits for cyber fraud. His role constitutes a crucial link in the chain of cyber offenders, without whom the fraudsters could not have successfully received or dissipated the defrauded money. Further, despite issuance of statutory notices under Sections 35(3) and 94 B.N.S.S., the applicant willfully failed to produce any valid document relating to the bank accounts, the extraordinary transactions therein, or the consideration received from the sale, thereby showing blatant non-cooperation, withholding of material evidence, and an attempt to obstruct the investigation. Several key accused, including the principal beneficiary Suraj Mandhani, are still absconding, the 6 applicant’s release on bail would seriously endanger the ongoing investigation. 10. So far as the other co-accused persons are concerned, there bail application have already been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 12.09.2025 and 31.10.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 7344/2025 and 8661/2025, and order dated 17.11.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 9224/2025, 8714/2025, 8228/2025, 9209/2025 and 9197/2025, order dated 18.11.2025 passed in MCRC No.9254/2025, and order dated 21.11.2025 passed in MCRC No.9441/2025, respectively. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 11. Accordingly, this first bail application of applicant – Bobby Khatri, involved in Crime No. 129/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected at this stage. 12. Needless to say that the learned trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 13. 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