1 2025:CGHC:56918 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1637 of 2025 Aazad Hussain S/o Moh. Rafique Ansari, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Rulhi Nizamat, Police Station - Majholiya, District West Champaran Betiya (Bihar) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Chandaura, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant (s) : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Government Advocate SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 24/11/2025 1. This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 55/2021 registered at Police Station Chandaura, Surajpur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the present applicant along with other co-accused persons, hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit a cyber crime and made a fraudulent call to complainant Naveen Kumar informing him that he has won a lottery. By making such allurement, the accused, in a fraudulent manner, obtained a sum of Rs.2,20,500/- from the complainant under the pretext of GST and income tax. Hence, the aforesaid offence has been registered. The charge sheet has been filed in the absence of the present applicant as he was absconding. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that co-accused Manoj Yadav has been released on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2022 passed in MCRC No.7823/2022. He also submits that similarly situated other co-accused Vinay Yadav, Ekram Ansari and Ramphal have also been granted bail by the trial Court. He further submits that the statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded, however, they have not stated anything against the present applicant. Considering all these aspects, learned counsel for the applicant prays to release the applicant on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. He would submit that during investigation, the applicant did not cooperate and the charge sheet was filed in his absence as he was absconding. He would further submit that in the account of the present applicant, Rs.5000/- was transferred and further, co-accused Rambabu 3 Yadav has also given certain information to the effect that the present applicant is also actively involved in the aforesaid cyber crime. Therefore, the applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, particularly considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 6. Accordingly, the Application is rejected. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna