1 2025:CGHC:55839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9197 of 2025 Atahar Nawaj S/o Fajal Nawaj Aged About 38 Years R/o B-45, Krishna Nagar, F.I.C. Godown Ke Samne, Ward No. 9, Pahadi Chowk, Gudiyari, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Civil Line, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.11.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Line, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the bank account number RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 60486587484 in IFSC Code MAHB0001928 of Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Branch was found to be in the name of Afroza Shaikh, (Afro Corporation), and the SIM Card No.6266262219 registered in the said Bank Account was found to be in the name of Syed Sami Ullah. Upon questioning the account holder of Afroza Shaikh and SIM Card Holder Syed Sami Ullah, it was revealed that the said SIM Card and bank account were being used by the present applicant. Thereafter the cyber police investigated the matter and the present applicant has been implicated in this case. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. It is further submitted that no incriminating material or proceeds of crime have been recovered from the applicant. The entire case is based on statements and assumptions without any direct material evidence against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 24.06.2025, and the conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that from the perusal of the case-diary it transpires that the present case concerns large-scale cyber-financial fraud involving mule bank accounts systematically used for siphoning and laundering proceeds of cybercrime across various States. The total deposits in just one of the accounts connected to the applicant amount to more than Rs.63,56,787/-, out of which 3 almost the entire amount of Rs.62,49,818 has been withdrawn. This demonstrates the active and crucial role of the applicant in facilitating organized cyber crime operations. The registered mobile number linked to the fraudulent account, the KYC details, and statements of the account holder and SIM-card holder clearly establish that the said account was being operated by the applicant. The applicant himself has admitted in his memorandum that he procured the account and SIM through his relatives and handed over the banking credentials, ATM card, and internet banking ID to his associate for commission. Five cyber-crime reports from various States have been received against the accounts operated by the applicant. This shows that the offence is not an isolated incident but part of an inter-State cyber-fraud network, thereby increasing the gravity of the offence and the possibility of wider ramifications. Despite issuance of notices under Sections 35(3) and 94 BNSS, the applicant deliberately failed to provide any valid documents, explanation, or account statements related to the massive transactions. His conduct demonstrates wilful non-cooperation and raises a strong apprehension that if released on bail, he will tamper with evidence or hamper further investigation. As such, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From the perusal of the records as well as the bail rejection order of the trial Court concerned, and considering the overall incriminating facts and circumstances emerging from the case diary, it is evident 4 that the bank account bearing No. 60486587484 opened through the applicant’s active facilitation and operated using a SIM card procured by him was used as a mule account for receiving and siphoning fraudulent cyber-crime proceeds amounting to more than Rs. 63,56,787/-, out of which Rs. 62,49,818/- has already been withdrawn. The statements of the account holder and the registered SIM card holder categorically attribute the operation and control of the said account to the applicant. The applicant’s own memorandum further establishes that he deliberately procured the KYC-linked mobile number, got it registered with the fraudulent bank account, and handed over the internet banking ID, password, and ATM card to his associate for illegal financial transactions in return for monetary commission. Five cyber-crime complaints from different States stand registered against the accounts linked to him, demonstrating his involvement in a wider, organized cyber-fraud network. His persistent non-cooperation during investigation, failure to produce any valid documents regarding the extraordinary financial transactions, and the likelihood of tampering with crucial digital evidence further strengthen the prosecution case. In these circumstances, the role of the applicant is clear, direct, and indispensable to the commission of the offence, and therefore. So far as the other co-accused persons are concerned, there bail application have already been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 12.09.2025 and 31.10.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 7344/2025 and 8661/2025, respectively. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 5 7. Accordingly, this first bail application of applicant – Atahar Nawaj involved in Crime No. 129/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Line, Raipur, 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. 8. Needless to say that the learned trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 9. 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