1 2026:CGHC:14413 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 451 of 2026 • Gurpreet Singh Sohel @ Chintu Singh Sohel S/o Late Karnail Singh Aged About 40 Years Caste Sikh, R/o Vishrampur, Police Station- Visharampur, District- Surajpur (CG) ... Applicant(s) versus • State of C.G. Through P. S.- Surajpur, District- Surajpur (CG) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shiv Sevak Manjhi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy.G.A Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/03/2026 1. This is first Anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.268/2025 registered at Police Station – Surajpur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 413, 420, 120-B, 34 IPC 1860 and 66(D) of IT Act, 2000. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Prosecution story is that the Surajpur Police Station has registered Crime No. 268/2025 under sections 413,420,120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.04.01 11:10:37 +0530 2 section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. A complaint of online fraud was received from the office of Police Headquarters, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh, based on complaints lodged in the coordination portal operated by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (14C) and during investigation, it was found that bank account number 60478065547 of co-accused Suraj Kumar Sarathi and bank account number 60486708932 of co- accused Mukesh Kumar Dewangan, both of Maharashtra bank, Surajpur branch, were linked to multiple online cyber fraud complaints with various acknowledgement numbers. Information and bank transactions statements were obtained, which allegedly shown proof of transaction of money taken in online cyber fraud case amounting Rs. 4,45,551/- across 11 complaints. Based on these findings, offence under sections 413, 420, 120(B) of IPC was registered against co-accused Suraj Kumar Sarthi and Mukesh Kumar Dewangan under Crime No. 268/2025. That during interrogation, co-accused Suraj Kumar Sarathi allegedly stated that he used to give his account to one Lochan Singh for Rs. 6,000/- per month. Co-accused Mukesh Kumar Dewangan allegedly stated that he opened an account in his name and gave it to his relative Ranjita, resident of Koilari, Police Station Jhilmili/Vishrampur, for Rs. 1,000/- per account. Allegation against present Applicant is that, he, in connivance with his associates Suraj Kumar Sarathi and Mukesh Kumar Dewangan, systematically used the bank accounts of acquaintances to commit cyber fraud in various states to amass illicit wealth. That the prosecution claims that the confessional statement of co-accused Ranjita Singh reveals the Applicant's involvement in the said crime and the prosecution contends that the Applicant, along with other main accused persons, lured people to give them money, collected accounts of many banks 3 from them, and by giving Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- in exchange for each account, obtained bank accounts, ATM cards, and mobile Number SIMs attached to the said accounts which were then provided (sold) to members of a cyber fraud gang for illegal earnings. 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 there in no role of present applicant and only on the basis of suspicion and the alleged statement of co- accused persons, which has no independent corroboration against the applicant. He also submits that there is no direct evidence to show that the applicant operated, controlled or benefited from the alleged bank accounts referred to in the prosecution story and no incriminating material has been from his possession. It is further contended that applicant’s name is not mentioned in the FIR and main accused namely Mukesh Kumar and Ranjit Singh have been enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 16.09.2025 in MCRC No.7453 of 2025 and order dated 06.11.2025 in MCRC No.7801 of 2025 respectively, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application and submits that on the basis of memorandum statement of other co-accused persons, present applicant implicated in crime in question and it could not disputed the fact that the main accused person namely Mukesh Kumar and Ranjit Singh have been enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 16.09.2025 in MCRC No.7453 of 2025 and order dated 06.11.2025 in MCRC No.7801 of 2025 respectively. It is also submits that the present applicant is actively involved in a well-organized cyber fraud racket operating across 4 multiple states. The investigation has revealed that bank accounts of co-accused persons, namely Suraj Kumar Sarathi and Mukesh Kumar Dewangan, were used in commission of cyber fraud involving an amount of ₹4,45,551/- across 11 complaints. It is further submitted that during interrogation, the co-accused persons have categorically disclosed that the applicant was helpful in procuring bank accounts, ATM cards and SIM cards from various individuals by offering monetary consideration ranging from 1,000/- to 6,000/- ₹ ₹ per account. It is contended that the applicant, in connivance with other accused persons, facilitated the operation of cyber fraud by supplying such bank accounts to fraudsters, thereby enabling illegal transactions of defrauded money. Learned counsel further submits that the confessional statement of co-accused Ranjita Singh also implicates the present applicant and establishes his active role in the conspiracy, therefore, applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence and allegation levelled against the present applicant and also considering the fact that during interrogation, the co-accused persons have categorically disclosed that the applicant was helpful in procuring bank accounts, ATM cards and SIM cards from various individuals by offering monetary consideration ranging from 1,000/- ₹ to 6,000/- per account. It is contended that the applicant, along ₹ with other accused persons, facilitated the operation of cyber fraud by supplying such bank accounts to fraudsters, thereby enabling 5 illegal transactions of defrauded money and the co-accused have been granted regular bail, the said fact does not constitute a valid ground for granting anticipatory bail to the present applicant, hence this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, this bail application of applicant – Gurpreet Singh Sohel @ Chintu involved in Crime No.268/2025 registered at Police Station – Surajpur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 413, 420, 120-B, 34 IPC 1860 and 66(D) of IT Act, 2000, is rejected at this stage. 8. 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 vaishali