1 2025:CGHC:53345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8661 of 2025 Rajesh Mandhani S/o Ram Mandhani, Aged About 37 Years R/o Shivanand Nagar, Sector 2, Mandhani Nivas, Khamtarai, Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through PS Cyber Cell Headquarter, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate (through Video Conferencing) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jintendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.10.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.129/2025 registered at Police Station- Cyber Cell Headquarter, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.31 18:34:03 +0530 2 317(4), 317(5), 111(3) and 3(5) of the BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, an enquiry was conducted and thereafter Crime No. 129/2025 was registered at Cyber Police Station, Range Raipur for offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It is alleged that the applicant/accused is the holder of Bank of Maharashtra Account No. 60477482121 (IFSC: MAHB0001928), Raipur Branch, with mobile number 9109699060 registered therewith, in which a total amount of ₹19,18,593/- is shown to have been transacted. It is further alleged that an acknowledgement bearing No. 33101240008876 pertains to a financial transaction of Rs.10,000/- dated 20.03.2024. The prosecution has also alleged that the applicant, along with another individual, had lodged an online cyber fraud complaint and that as many as 31 bank accounts belonging to the same bank and branch are reported to have been flagged for suspicious cyber- related activity. It is further alleged that the statement of account of the applicant from 12.03.2024 to 16.03.2024 reflects unusually high-frequency transactions, allegedly comprising approximately 30-40 credit and debit entries per day. On 12.03.2024, various credit transactions of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,500/-, Rs.200/-, Rs.100/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.37,800/-, Rs.6,000/-, Rs.1,600/-, Rs.2,800/- and debit transactions of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.50,000/- have been cited. Similar patterns are alleged to be 3 reflected on 13.03.2024, 14.03.2024, 15.03.2024 and 16.03.2024, indicating multiple credits of small amounts and subsequent debit of lump-sum figures. According to the prosecution, such transactions across the said period indicate an extraordinary pattern suggestive of suspicious activity. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present matter without any cogent material linking him to the alleged offence. It is submitted that the entire prosecution case is fabricated, baseless and founded on incorrect facts allegedly manufactured by the investigating agency, and no substantive evidence exists to establish the applicant’s involvement. The applicant was arrested on 26.03.2025 by Cyber Cell Headquarters, Raipur for offences under Sections 111(3), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 3(5) of the BNS and was remanded to judicial custody, despite the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Thus, his further custodial interrogation is not required and continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose. It is further contended that the memorandum of the applicant indicates that the bank account in question was opened only on the inducement of the prime accused Amit, who subsequently operated the account, while the applicant received merely Rs.10,000/-, which itself reflects the absence of any benefit or nexus with the alleged transactions. 4 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further emphasized that the essential ingredient of mens rea is completely absent in the present case and the applicant had neither knowledge nor intention to facilitate any fraudulent activity and had no reason to suspect the motives of the prime accused. It is further submitted that co-accused persons, namely Ishika Singh and Sanjay Makhija, have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 4494/2025 and 4495/2025 vide order dated 13.10.2025, and therefore, the applicant also deserves bail on the ground of parity. He lastly submit that applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 26.03.2025, while the trial is likely to take considerable time given the nature of the financial data, multiple accused persons, and cyber-investigation involved hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that as per the report received from the Cyber Crime Branch, the present case pertains to a large-scale cyber fraud operation involving mule bank accounts created for the purpose of receiving and routing proceeds of cybercrime. Information received through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal revealed that 128 mule bank accounts were opened in various branches of Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur, used by cyber-criminals to receive fraudulent proceeds. Acting upon the information from the portal, as well as instructions from Police Headquarters, Crime 5 No. 129/2025 was registered and transferred to Range Cyber Police Station for investigation. During investigation, KYC details and transaction data of the implicated accounts were obtained. One such account, bearing No. 60477482121, IFSC MAHB0001928, was found in the name of applicant/accused Rajesh Mandhani, and scrutiny of the account revealed suspicious transactions amounting to Rs.19,18,593/- within a short span. Further, a cyber-fraud report reflected a transaction of Rs.10,000/- dated 20.03.2024 from the account of co-accused/applicant Hargun Singh to the said account, as per acknowledgment No. 33101240008876. Notices under Sections 35(3) and 94 of the BNSS were issued to the accused seeking clarification regarding the withdrawals and the use of the bank account, however, he failed to produce any documents regarding the bank account, mobile number, or the receipt/utilisation of funds. In his memorandum, the accused/applicant admitted to opening the account and handing over the entire account kit to one Amit in lieu of Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of online financial transactions, thereby knowingly facilitating the use of the account for illegal activities. It is submitted that the accused did not cooperate in investigation, withheld relevant documents, and attempted to tamper with evidence, necessitating his arrest on 26.03.2025. It is further pointed out that the said account has been flagged in cyber-crime reports at two different locations across India, demonstrating interstate ramifications of the offence. The 6 acknowledgment numbers and corresponding jurisdictions are as follows: Acknowledgement No. State District/City Police Station 31603240019400 Karnataka Shivamogga Jayanagara 33101240008876 Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Central- Commissionerate Lucknow Mahanagar 6. The State counsel further submit that the bail applications of three of the identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Shivkumar Nirmalkar, Sahil Jethwani and Anju Kumari have already been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 25.06.2025, 26.06.2025 and 08.07.2025 in MCRC Nos. 4856/2025, 4906/2025 and 5248/2025. So far as co-accused, namely, Ishika Singh and Sanjay Makhija, who have been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 4494/2025 and 4495/2025 vide order dated 13.10.2025 are concerned, a meager amount of Rs.8000/- has been credited into his account and as such, the case of the present applicant is completely distinguishable from that of the co-accused. 7. The learned State counsel lastly submits that in view of the nature of cyber-financial offences, possibility of tampering with evidence, alerting other accused persons still absconding, and hampering ongoing investigation cannot be ruled out. It is therefore prayed that the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this 7 stage. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 9. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the material on record, and the report of the Cyber Crime Branch, it transpires that the offences investigated are serious in nature involving alleged large-scale cyber-fraud and the use of multiple “mule” bank accounts across States to receive and launder proceeds of fraud. As per the material placed on record, information received through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal indicated that as many as 128 mule bank accounts were opened across various branches of Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur, which were being utilised by cyber fraudsters for receiving illegal funds. Upon receipt of the said information and further directions from the Police Headquarters, Crime No. 129/2025 was registered and transferred to Range Cyber Police Station for specialised cyber investigation. During investigation, KYC details and transaction history of suspicious accounts were obtained and one such account bearing No. 60477482121 in the name of the present applicant, linked with IFSC MAHB0001928, was scrutinised, revealing suspicious transactions amounting to Rs. 19,18,593/- over a short duration, clearly disproportionate to any disclosed legitimate source. 10. The material further reflects that an online cyber-fraud complaint 8 acknowledged under No. 33101240008876 evidences a transfer of Rs. 10,000/- from the bank account of co-accused Hargun Singh into the said account of the applicant, thereby linking the applicant to interstate cyber-fraud operations, including reports registered at Karnataka (Shivamogga – Jayanagara) and Uttar Pradesh (Lucknow Commissionerate). Notices under Sections 35(3) and 94 BNSS were issued requiring the applicant to furnish documents and justification regarding the transactions, however, the applicant failed to furnish any documents, explanation, or lawful justification for operation of the account or for the receipt and utilisation of funds. On the contrary, in his memorandum statement, the applicant admitted to opening the said bank account and handing over its entire operational kit to one Amit in exchange for Rs. 10,000/-, knowingly enabling the use of the account for online financial transactions outside his control, thereby prima facie facilitating illegal financial operations. The prosecution case further indicates that the applicant did not cooperate in investigation, withheld relevant documents, and attempted to tamper with digital and banking evidence, which necessitated his arrest on 26.03.2025. 11. It is also noted that the bail applications of three similarly-situated co-accused, namely, Shivkumar Nirmalkar, Sahil Jethwani and Anju Kumari, have already been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 25.06.2025, 26.06.2025 and 08.07.2025 in MCRC Nos. 4856/2025, 4906/2025 and 5248/2025 respectively. The present 9 applicant’s case stands on an even graver footing than that of co- accused Ishika Singh and Sanjay Makhija, who have been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 4494/2025 and 4495/2025 vide order dated 13.10.2025, as only Rs. 8,000/- was found credited in his account, whereas the present applicant’s account reflects transaction volume exceeding Rs. 19 Lakhs. In view of the magnitude of the financial quantum involved, the organised manner of commission of the cyber- financial offence, interstate ramifications, non-cooperation and conduct of the applicant during investigation, and the reasonable apprehension that release of the applicant at this stage may result in tampering with electronic evidence, alerting other absconding accused, and adversely affecting the ongoing investigation, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail at this juncture. 12. Accordingly, the first bail application of the applicant- Rajesh Mandhani, involved in Crime No.129/2025 registered at Police Station- Cyber Cell Headquarter, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected at this stage. 13. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet