1 2025:CGHC:61343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9232 of 2025 1 - Kamleshwar Singh S/o Basant Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Bodelipara Sonpur Outpost- Karanji, P.S. Vishrampur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rupan Paikra S/o Chunnulal Paikra Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Bodelipara Sonpur Outpost- Karanji, P.S. Vishrampur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Vishrampur, District – Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16/12/2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 83/2025, registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4) and 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 66(d) of IT Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that a direction was issued by the Office of the Additional Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry into the mule account No. 50200038421730 held by the applicant, Sajjan RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Gupta, in HDFC Bank. Pursuant to the said direction, the police of Police Station Vishrampur conducted an inquiry with account holders Chandradev Paikra, Kamleshwar Singh, and Rupan Paikra. During the inquiry, they stated that the applicant had advised them to provide their bank account numbers in exchange for receiving a commission. Relying on this assurance, they provided their account details and received certain commission amounts. It was alleged that a total transaction of Rs. 20,39,596/ was made through the said bank account, which was used for the transfer of fraudulent amounts. Complaints regarding the said transactions were lodged in the states of Karnataka and Maharashtra. Therefore, the accused was found to have conspired and a case was registered against him under sections 317 (4), 318 (4), 61(2)(a) of BNS & 66(d) of IT Act. the F.I.R. was lodged against the present applicants. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that during the investigation, it was found there is transactions of amount of only Rs. 1,280/- in the bank account of applicant No.2. The applicants are in jail since 17.04.2025 and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that a direction was issued by the Office of the Additional Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry into the mule account No. 50200038421730 held by the applicant, Sajjan Gupta, in 3 HDFC Bank. Pursuant to the said direction, the police of Police Station Vishrampur conducted an inquiry with account holders Chandradev Paikra, Kamleshwar Singh, and Rupan Paikra. During the inquiry, they stated that the applicant had advised them to provide their bank account numbers in exchange for receiving a commission. Relying on this assurance, they provided their account details and received certain commission amounts. It was alleged that a total transaction of Rs. 20,39,596/ was made through the said bank account, which was used for the transfer of fraudulent amounts. Complaints regarding the said transactions were lodged in the states of Karnataka and Maharashtra, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 17.11.2025, the Investigating Officer of the subject crime number, Police Station – Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.), has filed his affidavit showing the incriminating evidence collected against the applicant during the course of investigation, which is quoted here as under: “1. That, I am posted as the Investigating Officer of the Subject Crime Number, Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur (C.G.) and duly authorized to swear this affidavit on behalf of the Non-Applicant/State in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order/direction dated 17.11.2025, passed in the instant case and as such fully conversant with the facts of the case. 2. That, the subject case came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Court on 17.11.2025 and after hearing of this matter, the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to direct the concerned Investigating Officer to file his personal affidavit disclosing 4 the evidence collected during the course of investigation against the Applicants. Therefore, in compliance whereof, the instant affidavit is being filed before the Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal and consideration. 3. That, in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's direction, it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, has created a Cyber Crime Reporting Portal to prevent cyber crime in India in which, the victims of cyber crime report online by giving details of the cyber fraud committed with them, filling in the information of mobile numbers and bank accounts used in cyber fraud. 4. That, the brief description of the case is that, in the Samanvay (Coordination) Portal of Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre operated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India which is a comprehensive guide for sharing information on cyber crime for police investigation purposes, information related to such mule bank accounts which have been used for disbursing, utilizing and enriching the money obtained from cyber frauds has been collected from the Samanvay Portal. 5. That, during investigation, the memorandum statement of the accused Chandra Dev Paikara has duly been recorded and on the basis of his memorandum, the present accused applicants have been summoned and questioned wherein, they have categorically deposed in their memorandum statements that, they have given the bank accounts to the accused Sajjan Prasad Gupta for transaction of defrauded money obtained from cyber crime for which, the said accused Sajjan Prasad Gupta has given commission (0.25@ commission for per transaction) for those bank accounts. 6. That, during investigation, the said Sajjan Prasad Gupta was summoned and questioned wherein, he has categorically deposed that, he received the bank accounts from the accused applicants and has given the same to the Anil Kumar Dhanraj for Rs. 10,000/- per month for per Saving Bank Account and for Rs.25,000/-per month for per Current Bank Account. 7. That, during investigation, it was found that, there is transactions of fraud amount of Rs. 5,24,001/- in the bank account of the accused Anil Kumar for which, the complaints 5 have been lodged by the victims/complainants from the various States of the country such as Tamil Nadu, Telanghana, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Delhi, West Bengal, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh in the online Cyber Crime Reporting Coordination Portal/1930. 8. That, during investigation, it was found that, there is transactions of fraud amount of Rs. 6,00,003/- in the bank account of the accused Sajjan Prasad Gupta for which, the complaints from the Karnataka and Maharashtra States of the country have been lodged by the victims in the online Cyber Crime Reporting Coordination Portal/1930. 9. That, in the bank accounts of the accused persons, a total sum of Rs. 20,39,596/- has been found to be transacted by committing cyber fraud for which, the accused persons had conversations through WhatsApp and they have used computer resources for their fraud, therefore, the Section 66(D) of the IT Act, 2000 has been added in the crime. 10. That, during investigation, it was found that, there is transactions of fraud amount of Rs. 8,95,612/- in the bank account of the present accused Applicant No. 1 Kamleshwar Singh Paikara for which, the complaints from the various States (Kerala, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh) of the country have been lodged by the victims in the online Cyber Crime Reporting Coordination Portal/1930. 11. That, during investigation, it was found that, there is transactions of fraud amount of Rs, 1,280/- in the bank account of the present accused Applicant No. 2 Rupan Paikara for which, the complaint from the State of Delhi has been lodged by the victim in the online Cyber Crime Reporting Coordination Portal/1930. 12. That, the present accused Applicants has been arrested on 17.04.2025 by the Police Station Vishrampur in connection with Crime No. 83/2025, registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur (C.G.) against the present accused Applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 317 (4), 318 (4) and 61 (2) (A) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 66 (D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. After due completion of the investigation, the Challan has been filed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, District Surajpur against the accused Applicants and other accused persons. 6 13. That, if the present accused applicants are granted bail, they will certainly abscond which will have an adverse effect on the investigation of the case and their morale will be boosted and they will again form their own gang and repeat the serious crime which will create resentment in the society. Therefore, if they are granted bail, they will certainly abscond and influence the evidence, which will have an adverse effect on the investigation of the case, as they have been arrested after considerable efforts made by the concerned Police Authorities. 14. That, the Deponent has highest regards to the orders and directions passed by the Hon'ble Court from time to time and as and when, any further direction be made by the Hon'ble Court, the same will be complied with in its true spirit. 15. That, the contents of the attached Affidavit at Paragraphs No. 01 to 14, have been drafted under my instruction and the contents thereof are true and correct on the basis of the records, available in the office.” 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and from the perusal of the case diary, it is prima facie evident that the applicants were actively involved in an organized cyber fraud racket by providing their bank accounts as mule accounts for laundering proceeds of cyber crime. The investigation reveals that a total amount of Rs. 20,39,596/- has been fraudulently transacted through various bank accounts, including a huge amount of Rs. 8,95,612/- seized from the account of applicant No.1 Kamleshwar Singh, with complaints registered by victims from multiple States across the country through the Cyber Crime Reporting Portal/1930, thus, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to grant regular bail to the applicant No. 1. 8. Accordingly, this bail application of applicant No.1 – Kamleshwar Singh involved in Crime No. 83/2025, registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under 7 Sections 317(4), 318(4) and 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 66(d) of IT Act, is rejected at this stage. 9. So far as the allegation levelled against the applicant No.2 is concerned, the charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court, and it is evident that during the course of investigation, there is transaction of amount of only Rs. 1,280/- in the bank account of the applicant No.2 Rupan Paikra, and he is in jail since 17.04.2025, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant No.2 is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 10. Let applicant No.2 - Rupan Paikra, involved in Crime No. 83/2025, registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4) and 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 66(d) of IT Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, 8 proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 11. 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