1 2026:CGHC:14389 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1938 of 2026 1 - P. Satyanagamurti S/o P. Satyanarayan Murti, Aged About 25 Years R/o Pulaparthi Yalmanchli Mandal, District- Ankapalli (Andhra Pradesh) 2 - Balaji Shrinu S/o Balaji Ramnaidu Aged About 34 Years R/o 2-27, Chinna Vidhi, Tahs. Yalamanchli, District- Ankapalli (Andhra Pradesh) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, /cyber Police Range, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 08/2025 registered at Police Station – Bhilai Nagar/Cyber Police Range, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336, 317(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of I.T. Act. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the prosecution case, on 09.10.2025 the victim/informant lodged a written complaint before the local police, which was subsequently forwarded to the Cyber Police Station, Durg Range, alleging that on 29.08.2025 she received a phone call from mobile number 08065328447 and also received a link on her Instagram account inviting her to invest in Forex and commodity (gold) trading, acting upon the said inducement, she initially invested an amount of Rs. 17,500/- through a UPI transaction, and thereafter, an investment portfolio was generated while she herself created a trading account, it is further alleged that she was induced to invest Rs. 3,00,000/- with an assurance of receiving returns of Rs. 9,00,000/- by 18.09.2025, and she also received an amount of Rs. 2,200/- in her bank account on 02.09.2025, subsequently, she continued to invest various amounts, namely Rs. 3,00,000/- on 01.09.2025 to LNIB Solution, Rs. 10,00,000/- on 03.09.2025 to Vasudev Trading Company, Rs. 10,50,000/- on 09.09.2025 to Gupta Enterprises, Rs. 15,00,000/- on 11.09.2025 to Parmar Trading, and Rs. 10,00,000/- on 30.09.2025 to Sant Nivruti Sopn, totaling Rs. 48,67,500/- from her salary account maintained with Canara Bank, which amount is alleged to have been defrauded from her, and a copy of the FIR is filed as Annexure A/2. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case, that even after completion of the investigation, the police have failed to establish any involvement of the applicants, as the entire charge 3 sheet does not disclose commission of any offence by them, and although bank details have been annexed, no transaction has been shown in the accounts of the present applicants, it is further submitted that the charge sheet is conspicuously silent as to how the investigating agency has connected the applicants with the alleged offence, particularly when no mobile number mentioned in the complaint has been seized from their possession and no person to whom the alleged defrauded amount was actually credited has been arrested, moreover, one of the transactions dated 30.09.2025 is shown to have been credited to the account of a charitable trust, and there is no material to show any connection or association of the applicants with the alleged trading companies, it is also submitted that the final report has been filed without showing any person as absconding and without attributing any specific role to the applicants, and in absence of any legal evidence on record, the prosecution has yet to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which is likely to take considerable time. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the present applicant is in jail since 29.11.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that pursuant to the order dated 03.03.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the concerned Superintendent of Police has filed a detailed personal afÏdavit disclosing the material collected during investigation, which clearly 4 establishes the involvement of the present applicants in a well- organized cyber fraud wherein the complainant was dishonestly induced to invest an amount of ₹48,67,500/- under the pretext of forex trading, and on her complaint Crime No. 08/2025 has been registered under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act, it is further submitted that during investigation, bank account details were obtained which revealed that an amount of ₹15,00,000/- was transferred to the account of Parmar Traders maintained at Jubilee Hills Mercantile Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, and upon further investigation, the Call Detail Record and Customer Application Form of mobile number 9494681850 linked with the said account were analyzed, which established that the SIM was issued in the name of Applicant No. 1, namely P. Satyanagmurti, who upon apprehension disclosed that he had used the said number and later handed over the SIM to Applicant No. 2, Balaji Srinu, it is further submitted that Applicant No. 2, during interrogation, admitted that he had procured and handed over the said SIM to one Madhupari Chinnarao in exchange for monetary consideration, and the WhatsApp communication between them regarding the said SIM has been preserved as material evidence, thereby clearly demonstrating the active role of the applicants in facilitating the offence, it is also submitted that the bank account in question reflects huge suspicious transactions amounting to more than ₹12 crores within a short span, indicating a larger conspiracy, and thus, in view of the specific material collected against the applicants, their 5 custodial role, and the gravity of the offence, they are not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the fact and circumstances and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary as well as the detailed afÏdavit filed by the Superintendent of Police in compliance of the order dated 03.03.2026, this Court finds that there is prima facie material available on record indicating the involvement of the present applicants in the commission of the alleged offence, particularly, the investigation reveals that a substantial amount of ₹15,00,000/- out of the defrauded रकम was transferred to a bank account linked with a mobile number issued in the name of Applicant No. 1, and further material collected in the form of Call Detail Records, Customer Application Form, and the statements of the applicants indicates that the said SIM card was actively used and subsequently transferred by Applicant No. 1 to Applicant No. 2, who in turn handed it over to another co-accused for monetary consideration, and the WhatsApp communication corroborating such transaction has also been preserved as evidence, moreover, the bank account reflects huge financial transactions running into crores within a short period, suggesting a larger conspiracy and organized nature of the cyber fraud, thus, in view of the gravity of the offence, the specific role attributed to the applicants, and the material collected during investigation, this 6 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 the applicants – P. Satyanagamurti and Balaji Shrinu, involved in Crime No. 08/2025 registered at Police Station – Bhilai Nagar/Cyber Police Range, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336, 317(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce 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 Rahul Dewangan