1 2025:CGHC:53345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8633 of 2025 Smt. Jyoti Mishra W/o Hanuman Mishra Aged About 39 Years R/o Near Durga Mandir, Tulsi Nagar, Kushalpur, P.S. Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, P.S. - Cyber Thana Range, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate 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 second 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 Thana Range, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.31 18:34:03 +0530 2 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(3) and 3(5) of the BNS. 2. According to the prosecution, it came to light during investigation that a bank account bearing No. 60503916627, maintained at the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Branch, IFSC Code MAHB0000439, was opened in the name of the applicant/accused. It is alleged that mobile numbers 9300572060 and 7689857593 were registered with the said account and that a total sum of Rs.20,71,002/- was deposited therein. Further, a financial transaction amounting to Rs.16,000/- was recorded from the account on 12.12.2024. During cyber-surveillance, it was revealed that the said account was being used as part of an organized cyber-fraud network involving multiple bank accounts suspected to be used for mule banking activities. Online records suggest that around 20 such suspicious accounts were linked to the same IFSC code of the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Branch, indicating a wider conspiracy. It is alleged that the applicant had knowingly provided her Aadhaar card and other identification documents for illegal purposes to facilitate account opening and financial transactions. Upon scrutiny of banking data and mobile linkage details, the account appears to have been operated by the applicant/accused, who is therefore held responsible for permitting her credentials to be used for the fraudulent operation and siphoning of funds. Accordingly, the prosecution contends that the applicant/accused was directly or indirectly involved in the fraudulent banking 3 activities, thereby cheating innocent persons and causing financial loss. On these allegations, an offence under Section 420 IPC has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 09.07.2025 in MCRC No. 5342/2025, therefore this second bail application is filed on the ground of false implication, as there is no direct material connecting the applicant with the alleged cyber-fraud. It is contended that the entire allegation rests merely upon the opening of a bank account in the applicant’s name, which she asserts was done without her knowledge or consent. The applicant had only handed over her Aadhaar and other documents to the son of her acquaintance, one Ashwani Vishwakarma, for the purpose of filling a Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana application, and was unaware that the same would be misused for opening a bank account. The challan itself discloses that 128 bank accounts form part of the alleged fraudulent network, out of which only 63 account-holders have been identified, and several remain untraced, yet the bank officials responsible for account verification and opening particularly the Branch Manager and Branch Sales Manager have not been arrayed as accused, despite the statutory requirement that such accounts cannot be opened without their authorization. It is further submitted that the applicant never visited the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur branch, had no knowledge of the account or 4 transactions, and never received any SMS banking alerts, which clearly indicates that she neither operated the account nor benefited from the alleged transactions. The prosecution story, therefore, is based on mere suspicion without any corroborative evidence, and the complainant himself has not furnished complete credentials in the charge-sheet. 4. 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 parity. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is an innocent and illiterate woman, having only primary education, and has been falsely implicated due to political pressure. She 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 5 revealed that 128 suspicious bank accounts were opened in various branches of Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur under different IFSC codes, out of which 20 such accounts were identified under IFSC MAHB0000439. During investigation, it was found that bank account No. 60503916627 at Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur branch stood in the name of the applicant/accused, with two mobile numbers registered therein, and suspicious transactions amounting to Rs.20,71,002/- were credited into the said account within a short span of time. Further, a transaction of Rs.16,000/- on 12.12.2024 was found to be from the account of complainant Kamal Singh to the applicant’s account. The applicant’s name has also surfaced in multiple cyber-fraud complaints registered across different states. 6. It is further submitted that notice under Section 35(3) BNSS and later under Section 94 BNSS was issued to the applicant and during interrogation, the applicant is stated to have admitted that she opened the bank account at the instance of one Ashwani Vishwakarma in lieu of monetary consideration of Rs.10,000/-, and handed over the account kit in return for Rs.4,000/-. However, despite issuance of notice, she failed to produce documents relating to the mobile number and the alleged use of account. It is specifically submitted that three cyber-fraud complaints bearing Acknowledgement Nos. A250733100014, 20801250000391, and 33112240154057 have been registered against bank account No. 60503916627, pertaining to incidents reported from Raipur 6 (Chhattisgarh), Dwarka (Delhi) and Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh) through the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Portal, indicating inter-state involvement of the said account in alleged cyber-fraud activities. The acknowledgment numbers and corresponding jurisdictions are as follows: Acknowledgement No. State District/City Police Station A250733100014 Chhattisgarh Raipur Civil Lines 20801250000391 Delhi Dwarka Cyber Police Station Dwarka 33112240154057 Uttar Pradesh Sambhal Junawai 7. 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. 8. The learned State counsel lastly submits that in view of the nature of cyber-financial offences, possibility of tampering with evidence, 7 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 stage. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary as well as the first bail rejection order of the applicant dated 09.07.2025 in MCRC No. 5342/2025. 10. 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. Further, three separate complaints in respect of account no. 60503916627 have been lodged on the Indian Cyber Crime Portal from Raipur (Chhattisgarh), Dwarka (Delhi) and Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh), which indicates inter-state ramifications and the wide reach of the alleged conspiracy. The original case diary and charge-sheet have already been presented before the competent Court and the investigation is continuing into a large number of accused persons. Several co-accused have already been arrested and a supplementary charge-sheets have been filed. The report of the investigating agency discloses substantial incriminating material including suspicious credits aggregating Rs.20,71,002/- into the impugned account in a short 8 span of time and a specific transaction of Rs.16,000/- linked to the complainant and, materially, the applicant has failed to furnish documents called for in the course of investigation and, according to the investigation note, admitted handing over the account kit and receiving consideration for doing so. 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. 11. In these circumstances, there is a real and proximate danger that if released the applicant may tamper with evidence, influence witnesses or communicate with other accused persons who remain at large, thereby jeopardising the ongoing investigation. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the inter-state character of the complaints, the material on record indicating active misuse of the bank account, the applicant’s non- cooperation with aspects of the inquiry, and the reasonable apprehension of tampering or aiding absconding co-accused, this Court is satisfied that the applicant has not made out a case for enlargement on bail. 12. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant- Smt. Jyoti Mishra, involved in Crime No.129/2025 registered at Police 9 Station- Cyber Thana Range, District - 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