1 2026:CGHC:6073 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9672 of 2025 Mohammad Suhail @ Sohel S/o Islamuddin Aged About 28 Years R/o 913, Street No. 15, Ahmed Nagar, Chowki, Pillokhari, P.S. Lisadi Gad, District Meerut (U.P.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.02.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 335/2025, registered at Police Station : Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 66(D) of I.T. Act and Section 42(1), 3(e)10 of Telecommunication Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complaint lodged by RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the complainant, was alleged that on 01.07.2025 at about 3:15 PM, she received a phone call from mobile number 9918730513 on her mobile number 7999343412, wherein the caller introduced himself as an ofÏcer of the Crime Branch and informed her that she was involved in a big scam and was placed under “digital arrest.” On such false and fraudulent inducement, the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from her bank account bearing No. 0557053000002762 of South Indian Bank, Nehru Nagar Branch, to bank account No. 500101014137253 of City Union Bank, Branch No. 1, Vathiyar Kandappa Chulayi, Chennai, through RTGS. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the said amount was credited into the account of co-accused Azhar and thereafter the present applicant allegedly received his commission from the said amount and further transferred the remaining sum to the co- accused. It is further alleged that in his memorandum statement, the applicant disclosed that he had purchased a calling machine for generating fake calls and had kept the same in a rented house at Fatehpur; that he attempted to create an ID using the BOS-300 application but failed, whereafter the co-accused Azhar prepared the ID and provided it to him, and that the calls sold through the said ID were used for committing fraud, with payments being received in the account of co-accused Azhar and the commission being shared thereafter. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present applicant was arrested, hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the 3 present case. It is contended that no incriminating material whatsoever has been seized from the possession of the applicant and his implication is based solely on the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, which have no independent corroboration. It is further submitted that no amount has been received by the applicant from the bank account of the victim/complainant and the prosecution has failed to place on record any bank statement or material to demonstrate any money trail in favour of the applicant. She further submits that during the course of hearing, the learned State counsel pointed out that the applicant has seven criminal antecedents, whereupon this Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant time to explain the same. Upon verification of the details supplied by the State, it has emerged that none of the alleged antecedents pertain to the present applicant. Though the name and father’s name appear to be similar, the applicant consistently uses the name “Mohd. Suhail” in all his identity documents, and the address mentioned therein does not match with the address shown in the antecedents report. Hence, the allegation regarding criminal antecedents is misconceived and cannot be attributed to the present applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that the present applicant is in jail since 12.08.2025, and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further 4 submits that pursuant to the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the Investigating OfÏcer has filed his personal afÏdavit clearly demonstrating the active role of the present applicant in the commission of the offence, the evidence collected against him, the money trail and his criminal antecedents. It is submitted that the complainant was digitally arrested and cheated of Rs.12,00,000/- through calls made from the mobile numbers traced to Fatehpur, U.P., and during investigation, CDR, CAF and tower location data were collected establishing the nexus of the applicant with the co-accused. The afÏdavit discloses that the applicant was involved in selling fake calls through calling machines and SIM cards, receiving commission through bank accounts and digital wallets, and that several incriminating articles including mobile phones, SIM cards, calling machines, bank passbooks and cheque copies have been seized from his possession. It is further submitted that the defrauded amount was routed through multiple accounts, one of the main accused is still absconding, and the applicant played a key role in facilitating the cyber fraud. The afÏdavit further reveals that on verification from the State of Uttar Pradesh, as many as seven previous criminal cases are registered against the applicant, establishing him to be a habitual offender. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the organized nature of cyber crime, the likelihood of the applicant absconding being a resident of another State, influencing witnesses and repeating similar offences, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 5 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the material placed on record, and also the afÏdavit filed by the Investigating OfÏcer in compliance of the directions of this Court, it appears that though there are allegations indicating the applicant’s involvement in the commission of the offence as reflected in the afÏdavit, the role attributed to the applicant is limited in nature. It is also not in dispute that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 12.08.2025 and the investigation stands completed with filing of the charge-sheet. The alleged criminal antecedents pointed out by the State have been specifically disputed by the applicant, and prima facie the name and address mismatch raises a debatable issue which can be examined during trial. Keeping in view the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant, the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, though the allegations disclose involvement as per the afÏdavit, continued detention of the applicant is not warranted, and the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Mohammad Suhail @ Sohel, involved in Crime No. 335/2025, registered at Police Station : Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 66(D) of I.T. Act and Section 42(1), 3(e)10 of Telecommunication Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal 6 bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the 7 opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him, in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan