1 2025:CGHC:58594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9788 of 2025 Farid Ansari S/o Abdul Jabbar Ansari Aged About 29 Years R/o Mayapur, Gulmohar Gali, P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Police Station - Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.12.2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 365/2025 registered at Police Station - Ambikapur District - Surguja, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 3(5), and 111(iii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 6349 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2025 on merits. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that based on instructions received from the OfÏce of the Additional Superintendent of Police/Nodal OfÏcer, Cyber Cell, District Surguja (C.G.) vide letter dated 29.05.2025, regarding taking action against Layer-1 mule accounts and suspicious mobile numbers operating in various bank branches, an inquiry was conducted on 31.05.2025. During this inquiry, it was found that UCO Bank account No. 025263211075202, in the name of Altaf Hussain Ansari, was linked with mobile number 9826162164. During investigation of online betting transactions originating from two different States, Karnataka and Odisha into the said bank account, the account holder Altaf stated that he had been deceived by the applicant, who had induced him to open the UCO Bank account and had taken the passbook, ATM card and SIM card related to the said account. The applicant further disclosed that he had obtained these documents from Altaf for Rs. 2,000/- and had subsequently sold them to co- accused Pratik Kashyap for Rs. 5,000/-. The memorandum containing these statements is part of the case record. Since the applicant was found to have knowingly sold the bank account documents to co-accused Pratik Kashyap for use in online betting activities, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and co- accused Pratik Kashyap under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 3(5), and 111(iii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita before the Trial Court on 29.07.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merit and 3 the applicant is in jail since 20.07.2025. He submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, as the allegations are based solely on assumptions and police statements having no substantive evidentiary value. It is submitted that the initial letter dated 29.05.2025 issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police/Nodal OfÏcer, Cyber Cell, did not contain the applicant’s name, and even the memorandum of co-accused Pratik Kashyap dated 01.06.2025 does not mention the applicant, thereby showing no link or conspiracy attributable to him. He further submits that the prosecution relies only on statements of co- accused recorded by the police, which are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 CrPC, as held in Anshul Rana v. State of H.P. It is further submitted that no digital device, mobile phone, bank documents, cash, or any incriminating material has been recovered from the applicant, and there is no direct evidence connecting him with online betting or cybercrime. The mandatory requirement for invoking Section 111 BNS is also not fulfilled, as the applicant has no criminal antecedents or previous charge-sheets, in line with the principle laid down in Avinash v. State of Karnataka. He further submits that as per the status of the trial, four seizure witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and not support the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant 4 played a crucial role in facilitating online betting by knowingly procuring and selling the bank account, passbook, ATM card and SIM card to co-accused Pratik Kashyap, which were later used for interstate online betting transactions. It is argued that the applicant’s own memorandum shows his conscious involvement in creating mule accounts for illegal monetary transfers, making the offence serious in nature. Considering the gravity of the cyber- economic offence and the applicant’s active role in enabling the illegal transactions, it is submitted that granting bail may adversely affect the trial. Hence, the application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that though some seizure witnesses have been examined and have turned hostile, the same cannot be a ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that the applicant knowingly procured and sold the bank account, passbook, ATM card and SIM card for use in interstate online betting transactions, thereby facilitating a serious cyber-economic offence. The nature of allegations, the applicant’s active role in enabling mule accounts, and the gravity of the offence do not justify grant of bail in this second application. Hence, the second bail application of the present applicant is rejected. 5 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants – Farid Ansari, involved in Crime No. 365/2025 registered at Police Station - Ambikapur District - Surguja, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 3(5), and 111(iii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. 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