1 2026:CGHC:10533 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 797 of 2026 Jai Baghel S/o Sapur Baghel Aged About 41 Years R/o Bsup, 06/22, Khemka Colony, Ambuja Mal Science Center, Sector- 8, 1/4, Saddu, 1/2, Raipur (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station- Civil Line Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) MCRC No. 966 of 2026 Sheikh Shoheb S/o Sheikh Salim Aged About 36 Years R/o Durga Chowk, Balodabazar, P.S. City Kotwali, Present Address - Dubey Colony, Kampa Basti, P.S. Mowa, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Range Cyber Civil Line, Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MCRC No. 901 of 2026 Jujesh Sona S/o Shyam Sunder Sona Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 23/1221, Trimurti Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir Ganj, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Applicant in MCRC No.797 of 2026. : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate. For Applicant in MCRC No.901 of 2026. : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate. For Applicant in MCRC No.966 of 2026. :Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State. : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28/02/2026 1. Since the above-mentioned bail applications arise out of same 3 crime number, the same are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These are the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Range, Civil Lines Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 & 3(5) of BNS. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicants/accused persons, along with other co-accused individuals, were actively involved in an organised network engaged in cyber-fraud activities. The case diaries and charge-sheets reflect that numerous mule bank accounts were opened or facilitated by the accused in different banks, multiple accounts linked with fraudulent transactions amounting to Rs.64,10,855/-. These accounts were allegedly used to receive, transfer, circulate, and conceal funds obtained through cyber cheating. The prosecution asserts that the accused participated in a structured criminal syndicate engaged in cyber fraud and willingly assisted in the movement of stolen money, the material on record indicates prima facie involvement of the accused with co-accused persons in a coordinated fraud operation, which led to the registration of alleged offence against the applicants. Hence, the bail 4 application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant in MCRC No.797 of 2026 submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case, only on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, which are alleged to be false and baseless. There is no independent or corroborative evidence collected by the prosecution to substantiate the allegations against the applicant, and he has been arraigned as an accused without any direct material connecting him to the alleged offence. She further submits that the essential ingredients of Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not attracted in the present case as against the applicant. The prosecution has failed to collect sufficient material regarding the alleged cyber crime, and no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicant. The applicant has not committed any cyber offence and has been arrested merely on the basis of the disclosure statements of co-accused persons. She also submits that the material available on record, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. She later submits that similarly placed co-accused persons have preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 13678/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein bail has been granted, and a copy of the said order is annexed herewith as Annexure A-3. The applicant is in jail since 25.03.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge- 5 sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant in MCRC No.901 of 2026 submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, the applicant submits that the entire allegations levelled against him are false, fabricated and without any factual basis. He has neither transferred nor fraudulently received any amount in his account and has not played any role in the alleged offence. He has been implicated merely on suspicion without any cogent material or sufficient grounds. He further submits that the prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged transactions or the subject amount involved in the case. No record has been placed on record to demonstrate that any amount was transferred to or misappropriated by the applicant, nor is there any material to show his involvement in the alleged financial transactions. He also submits that the applicant has neither cheated nor committed any fraud with the complainant and has not committed any of the offences alleged against him. He has been wrongly arrested and falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of unfounded and baseless allegations. The applicant is in jail since 27.03.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 6 6. Learned counsel for the applicant in MCRC No.966 of 2026 submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, the allegation against the present applicant is that, he introduced one Ravi Kumar (Mobile No. 8871807550) to the co-accused Bajju Sharma and received commission for the same. However, the applicant categorically denies the said allegation and submits that he has neither introduced any person to the co- accused nor received any commission. There is no material or evidence available on record to substantiate such allegation, nor has any amount been received by the applicant in connection with the alleged crime. He further submits that similarly placed co-accused persons, namely Ishika Singh and Sanjay Makheja, have been granted bail by the Supreme Court of India. Likewise, co-accused Ashish Kalwani in M.C.R.C. No. 497/2026 and Avinash Tandekar in M.C.R.C. No. 148/2026 have also been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as the applicant has not played any role in the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in jail since 27.03.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 7 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the concerned Investigation Officer in compliance of the Court’s orders dated 27.01.2026, 28.01.2026 and 29.01.2026 has filed his affidavit disclosing the evidence collected during the course of investigation. The concerned I.O. has in his affidavit stated that on the basis of information received from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Coordination Portal, it was revealed that as many as 128 bank accounts opened in the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Branch were allegedly being used for receiving proceeds of online cyber fraud. Accordingly, the details of such accounts were forwarded to Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur and FIR bearing Crime No. 129/2025 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The matter was thereafter transferred to Police Station Range Cyber, Raipur for investigation, during which KYC details, linked mobile numbers and transaction statements were obtained from the concerned bank. 8. During investigation in the respective MCRCs, it was found that the accused persons were operating or facilitating mule bank accounts opened in the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Branch, through which substantial amounts were transacted within a short span of time from the date of opening. Multiple complaints were 8 registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Coordination Portal from different States alleging online financial fraud against the applicants. The complaints registered against their respective bank accounts across the country are as follow: Account involved in MCRC No.797 of 2026 Acknowledgement No. State District Remarks 31911240155069 Maharashtra Thane City, PS Manpada Online Finance Fraud 33111240148178 Uttar Pradesh Gautam Buddha Nagar, PS Surajpur Online Finance Fraud Account involved in MCRC No.901 of 2026 Acknowledgement No. State District Remarks 22704240012442 Rajasthan Jaipur City (East) Online Finance Fraud 33205240007011 West Bengal Kolkata Eastern Sub Division Online Finance Fraud Account involved in MCRC No.966 of 2026 Acknowledgement No. State District Remarks 32107240022785 Madhya Pradesh Bhopal Urban Online Finance 9 Fraud 32904240013366 Tamil Nadu Thiruvannamalai Online Finance Fraud The aforementioned accounts were found to have been used for receiving and withdrawing the defrauded amounts. It is alleged that in MCRC No. 797 of 2026, the mule account of Jai Baghel (A/c No. 60509393111) reflected total credits of Rs. 14,34,765/- from 23.11.2024, out of which Rs. 14,34,559/- was withdrawn till 31.12.2024. In MCRC No. 901 of 2026, the account of Jujesh Sona (A/c No. 60484547227) showed total credits of Rs. 48,98,252/- from 18.03.2024, out of which Rs. 48,98,168/- was withdrawn till 31.12.2024. Similarly, in MCRC No. 966 of 2026, the account of Ravi Kumar Dhruv (A/c No. 60486847875) reflected credits amounting to Rs. 58,41,876/- from 05.04.2024, out of which Rs. 58,41,872/- was withdrawn till 31.12.2024. Multiple complaints from different States were registered on the Cyber Crime Portal alleging online financial fraud, and the said accounts were found to have been used for receiving and routing the defrauded amounts. 9. The affidavits further state that the respective accused persons were summoned and notices under Sections 35(3) and 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were issued for interrogation and production of documents relating to bank account kits, ATM cards, SIM cards and net banking credentials. 10 Memorandum statements were recorded wherein it was alleged that the bank accounts were opened or handed over on inducement of monetary consideration ranging from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- and were used for facilitating cyber fraud transactions. Thereafter, the present applicants in the respective MCRCs were arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2025 for the aforesaid offences under the BNS, 2023. 10. Learned State counsel later submits that the bail applications of co-accused persons, namely, Rajesh Mandhani, Smt. Jyoti Mishra, Shivkumar Nirmalkar, Sahil Jethwani, Anju Kumari and many others have already been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 31.10.2025, 25.06.2025, 25.06.2025 and 08.07.2025 in MCRC Nos.8661 of 2025, 8633 of 2025, 4856 of 2025, 4906 of 2025 and 5248 of 2025. Therefore, the bail applications of present applicants are also liable to be rejected on the same ground. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 12. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case diary and affidavit filed by the concerned Investigation Officer, it prima facie appears that the present applicants were actively involved in operating and facilitating mule bank accounts opened in the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Branch, which were used for receiving, 11 routing and withdrawing proceeds of large-scale online financial fraud. The investigation reveals that substantial amounts were credited into the respective accounts within a short span from the date of opening and almost the entire amounts were systematically withdrawn, clearly indicating deliberate and organized misuse of the banking channels. Multiple complaints from different States registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Coordination Portal further substantiate the inter-State ramifications of the offence and demonstrate that the alleged acts are not isolated in nature but form part of a wider cyber fraud network. 13. The memorandum statements and materials collected during investigation indicate that the accounts were opened or handed over on monetary inducement and were knowingly used for facilitating cyber fraud transactions. The magnitude of the amounts involved, the multiplicity of victims across various States, and the organized manner in which the transactions were conducted reflect the serious economic impact of the offence on unsuspecting members of the public. Economic offences of such nature, which undermine the integrity of the financial system and have wide societal repercussions, are required to be viewed with a different approach while considering the question of bail. 14. Furthermore, the co-accused on whom learned counsel for the applicants are placing reliance was granted bail by the Hon’ble 12 Apex Court on the ground that she is a lady and has received Rs.8,000/- in her account, whereas the bail application of identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Rajesh Mandhani, Smt. Jyoti Mishra, Shivkumar Nirmalkar, Sahil Jethwani, Anju Kumari and many others have already been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 31.10.2025, 25.06.2025, 25.06.2025 and 08.07.2025 in MCRC Nos.8661 of 2025, 8633 of 2025, 4856 of 2025, 4906 of 2025 and 5248 of 2025. Therefore, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the likelihood of further prejudice to the investigation, as such this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on bail. 15. Accordingly, the bail applications of applicants - Jai Baghel, Sheikh Shoheb and Jujesh Sona involved in Crime No. 129/2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Range, Civil Lines Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 & 3(5) of BNS, are rejected. 16. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and concluded the trial expeditiously. 17. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil