1 2025:CGHC:61254 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9079 of 2025 Ankush Sharma S/o Ramesh Chandra Sharma Aged About 26 Years Resident Of House No.57, Dairy Vasant Kunj, Masudpur, South West Delhi, New Delhi, Another Address- Shop No.200, Huda Market Sector- 46, Gurugram (Haryana) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/12/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 479/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of BNS and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act. 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Mohit Dewangan was cheated by the accused persons through a well- planned and organized online fraud under the guise of stock market investment. Between 20.10.2024 and thereafter, the accused contacted the complainant, falsely representing themselves as stock market/NSE professionals, and induced him with assurances of doubling his investment within a short period. Acting on these false assurances, the complainant transferred a total amount of Rs.15,02,700/- on different dates into a Bank of Baroda account held in the name of accused Ankush Sharma. Subsequently, the accused demanded additional money in the name of commission and avoided returning the invested amount, leading the complainant to realize that he had been deceived. The records further reveal that accused Ankush Sharma knowingly allowed his bank account and ATM card to be used by a co-accused and, from the very beginning, actively participated in the fraudulent transactions in conspiracy with him. Thus, the accused persons dishonestly obtained a substantial sum of money through online transactions, constituting a serious economic offence. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as it stands, there is no prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. The applicant was working in a pizza shop and, on the request of his friend Jagdeep Kumar, a resident of Delhi, he merely provided his bank account details and ATM card after being lured 3 with an assurance of receiving Rs.1,00,000/-. Acting under this temptation, the applicant shared his account details and allegedly received Rs.1,00,000/-, which he spent. He also submits that the prosecution has falsely implicated the applicant by concocting a story, as the bank account of the applicant, though used for receiving money from the complainant, was operated by Jagdeep Kumar. Therefore, prima facie, no role of the applicant is made out in the commission of the alleged offences. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 13.11.2025, the concerned Investigating Officer has filed his personal affidavit in the matter disclosing that on the basis of complaints lodged on the Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and subsequent investigation, it was revealed that the complainant Mohit Dewangan was cheated of Rs.15,02,700/- between 20.10.2024 and 12.12.2024 by accused persons on the false pretext of earning high profits through National Stock Exchange investments, and that the said fraudulent amount was credited into Bank of Baroda Account No. 47810100017735 standing in the name of the present accused applicant Ankush Sharma; during investigation, CAF/CDR of the mobile numbers and bank records were obtained, and upon interrogation, the applicant admitted that he had knowingly provided his bank account and ATM card to co-accused Jagdeep Kumar in lieu of Rs.1,00,000/-, despite being informed that the account would be used for routing fraud money, and that the said amount was 4 credited into his account within a short span from 23.10.2024 to 31.10.2024, thereby showing his conscious involvement in the cyber fraud, leading to his arrest on 26.04.2025 in Crime No. 479/2024 under the aforementioned offences. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy and the affidavit filed by the concerned Investigating Officer, it prima facie appears that the complainant Mohit Dewangan was cheated of a total amount of Rs.15,02,700/- through a well-planned and organized online fraud under the guise of stock market/National Stock Exchange investments during the period from 20.10.2024 onwards. The accused persons, by falsely representing themselves as stock market professionals, induced the complainant with assurances of doubling his investment within a short time, pursuant to which the complainant transferred the said amount on different dates into Bank of Baroda Account No. 47810100017735 standing in the name of accused Ankush Sharma. The investigation further revealed, on the basis of bank records, CAF/CDR details and the memorandum statement of the accused, that Ankush Sharma had knowingly provided his bank account and ATM card to co-accused Jagdeep Kumar in lieu of Rs.1,00,000/-, despite being aware that the account would be used for routing fraud money, and that the fraudulent amount was credited into his account within a short span between 5 23.10.2024 and 31.10.2024, thereby establishing his conscious and active involvement in the commission of the cyber fraud, for which he was arrested on 26.04.2025 in Crime No. 479/2024 registered under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 7. In light of the gravity of the offence, the volume of fraudulent transactions, the applicant conscious involvement in providing mule accounts, the present applicant does not deserve the grant of bail. Therefore, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the likelihood of further prejudice to the investigation, as such this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail applications of applicants - Ankush Sharma, involved in Crime No. 479/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of BNS and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and concluded the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil