1 2025:CGHC:56120 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9101 of 2025 Arif Mandavi S/o Nand Kumar Mandavi Aged About 20 Years R/o H.No. 67/6, Type - 2 Wrs Colony, Near Pooja Pandal, Khamtarai District- Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492001 ... applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ganj District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For applicant(s) : Mr. Sharad Prakash Yqadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Smt. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 79/2025, registered at Police Station Ganj District- Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 111 of BNS. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that a complaint was received from the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Range Raipur, reporting that an amount of Rs.27,27,556/- was fraudulently transferred into 41 bank accounts of Karnataka Bank, Raipur Branch, through cyber- cheating. On this basis, Crime No. 79/2025 was registered at Police Station Ganj, Raipur under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) & 111 BNS, and investigation commenced. During investigation, 19 accused persons including the present applicant have been arrested and sent to judicial custody. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated solely on the technical ground that his bank account was linked to the alleged fraudulent transactions. There is no material to show his conscious involvement, criminal intent, or any benefit derived from the alleged offence. Mere suspicion based on account linkage cannot substitute the legal requirement of proof, and no evidence demonstrates the requisite mens rea on his part. He further submits that the applicant’s alleged role is purely passive and limited to providing his ID documents to acquaintances Lovedeep and Sunil Walter, believing they were needed for educational assistance. There is no allegation of the applicant operating the account, withdrawing money, or receiving any wrongful gain. He has clean antecedents, has cooperated throughout investigation, and no incriminating recovery has been made from him. The charge-sheet has already been filed, eliminating the need for further custodial interrogation. He 3 also submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider the applicant’s minimal role, young age, clean record, and full cooperation, and rejected bail solely on the gravity of the offence without identifying any specific act justifying continued custody. With no financial trail linking him to the siphoned amount and no evidence of active participation, his prolonged incarceration after filing of the charge-sheet amounts to punishment before conviction and violates the presumption of innocence. The applicant is in jail since 01.05.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 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 before the competent Court. He further submits that the present accused is alleged to have allowed his bank account and documents to be misused for receiving fraud money. Case papers and his own admission indicate his prima facie involvement in the offence. Investigation is still incomplete, and serious cyber- fraud is alleged against him. She also submits that the bail applications of four of the co-accused persons have already been rejected by this Court, therefore, the bail application of the applicant is also liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel 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 fact that 4 the applicant is alleged to have allowed his bank account and documents to be used in a cyber-fraud wherein an amount of Rs.27,27,556/- was routed through multiple accounts, including his, for wrongful gain, further considering the fact that the case papers and his own admission indicate his prima facie involvement in facilitating the transfer of fraudulently obtained money, also considering the fact that the bail applications of four of the co- accused persons have already been rejected by this Court, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant - Arif Mandavi, involved in Crime No. 79/2025, registered at Police Station Ganj District- Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 111 of BNS, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and concluded the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar