1 2025:CGHC:61537 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9414 of 2025 Devkumar Acharya S/o Mahendra Acharya Aged About 20 Years R/o H.No. 2051 Ward No. 06, Wrs Colony, Khamtarai, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Ganj District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastrava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.12.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed 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. 79/2025 registered at Police Station– Ganj District- Raipur, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of a letter received from the Cyber Range, forty-one account holders were arrayed as accused, as amounts were transferred into their RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 respective bank accounts. However, the case of the present applicant stands on a slightly different footing, inasmuch as it is alleged that the applicant had provided his bank account kit to another person, on the basis of which he has been implicated in the aforesaid crime. A copy of the FIR is annexed herewith as Annexure A-2 for kind perusal. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely and intentionally implicated in the present case, having not committed any offence as alleged. It is contended that the entire prosecution case against the applicant rests merely on the allegation that he provided his bank account kit for a sum of Rs.1,000/-, for which no independent or cogent evidence has been brought on record except the memorandum statement, which by itself is insufÏcient to establish culpability. The charge-sheet does not cite any witness from whose account any amount was transferred to the account of the present applicant. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the applicant and has rejected the bail application on conjectures and surmises, stretching its imagination beyond the permissible limits of law. There is no material to show that the release of the applicant on bail would prejudice the prosecution case, and there is no apprehension of the applicant tampering with evidence or interfering with the trial. He also submits that he has no any previous criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 26.03.2025 and conclusion of the trial may 3 take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the subject case was taken up for hearing before this Hon’ble Court on 20.11.2025, whereupon this Court was pleased to direct the concerned Investigating OfÏcer to file his personal afÏdavit disclosing the evidence collected during the course of investigation against the present applicant, in compliance whereof the instant afÏdavit has been filed. A perusal of the afÏdavit reveals that the present applicant was arrested on 26.03.2025 in Crime No. 79/2025 for serious offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, arising out of a large-scale organised inter-State cyber fraud detected through the Cyber Crime Reporting Portal of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The investigation has established that as many as 41 mule bank accounts were being operated to receive proceeds of cyber fraud, and the case of the present applicant stands on an even graver footing. As specifically recorded in paragraph 10 of the afÏdavit, the present applicant in his memorandum statement has categorically admitted that he knowingly provided his bank account to one Sunil in lieu of monetary consideration of Rs.1,000/-, thereby consciously facilitating the commission of cyber fraud. Further, paragraph 11 of the afÏdavit discloses that a staggering amount of Rs.3,91,98,292/- was credited into the Karnataka Bank account of the present applicant between 22.01.2024 and 05.03.2025 from victims belonging to various States of the country, and out of the said 4 amount, Rs.3,91,63,453/- was withdrawn, clearly demonstrating that the applicant’s bank account was actively used as a conduit for laundering proceeds of crime. Multiple cyber complaints registered in States including Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand further establish the inter-State and organised nature of the offence. It is further submitted that the bail applications of similarly placed co-accused persons, namely N. Nikhil, Manish Dodwani, Lata Soni, Sachin Lihare and Bhagvat Prasad Shukla, have already been rejected by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC Nos. 4307/2025, 4538/2025, 5099/2025, 9654/2025 and 9149/2025 vide orders dated 30.06.2025, 30.06.2025, 02.07.2025, 27.11.2025 and 25.11.2025 respectively, thereby reinforcing the consistent judicial view taken by this Court in respect of the present crime. In view of the enormity of the fraud, the applicant’s own admission of providing his bank account for illegal use, the voluminous documentary and digital evidence collected, and the real apprehension that the applicant may abscond, influence witnesses or re-indulge in similar cyber offences if enlarged on bail. Hence, the applicant does not deserve the benefit of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the case diary and the personal afÏdavit filed by the Investigating OfÏcer in compliance of the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by this Court, this Court finds that the material 5 collected during investigation prima facie establishes the active and conscious involvement of the present applicant in an organised, inter-State cyber fraud. The afÏdavit reveals that the applicant knowingly provided his bank account for facilitating cyber fraud in lieu of monetary consideration and that an enormous amount of Rs.3,91,98,292/- was credited into his bank account, out of which Rs.3,91,63,453/- was withdrawn, clearly demonstrating that the account of the applicant was used as a conduit for laundering proceeds of crime. The record further reflects multiple cyber complaints lodged by victims belonging to various States of the country, indicating the wide magnitude and serious nature of the offence. This Court also takes note of the consistent judicial view adopted in the present crime, inasmuch as the bail applications of other co-accused persons, namely N. Nikhil, Manish Dodwani, Lata Soni, Sachin Lihare and Bhagvat Prasad Shukla, have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC Nos. 4307/2025, 4538/2025, 5099/2025, 9654/2025 and 9149/2025 vide orders dated 30.06.2025, 30.06.2025, 02.07.2025, 27.11.2025 and 25.11.2025 respectively. In view of the gravity of the offence, the enormous financial loss caused to innocent victims across the country, the applicant’s own admission regarding providing his bank account for illegal use, and the reasonable apprehension of absconding or influencing the course of justice, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. 6 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Devkumar Acharya, involved in Crime No. 79/2025 registered at Police Station– Ganj District- Raipur, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce 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 Rahul Dewangan