1 2026:CGHC:19376 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2799 of 2026 Ravi Wadhwani S/o Late Shri Gyanchand Wadhwani Aged About 34 Years R/o Bajrang Ward, Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Range Cyber Police Station, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Anmol Verma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. Gen. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.04.2026 1 The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.189/2025, registered at Police Station – Range Cyber, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2 As per the prosecution story, the present applicant/accused is KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 stated to be the holder of a bank account bearing No. 11571100000180 in Punjab and Sindh Bank, Branch at Mahalaxmi Market, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.), having IFSC Code PSIB0021157, wherein an amount of Rs. 1,70,415/- was deposited and the said account was linked with mobile number 9202295304. It is alleged that the applicant, after opening the said account in his own name, handed over its operational control to one Sanjay Tharani @ Sanju Ram for his business activities in lieu of a consideration of Rs. 7,000/-. The prosecution further alleges that on 08.10.2024, the complainant Furkaan Sheikh along with two others lodged an online complaint regarding a fraudulent transaction of Rs. 2,000/-, bearing acknowledgement No. 31610240079161, and during investigation, the said account of the applicant surfaced in connection with such transactions. It is further the case of the prosecution that in the same bank branch, a total of 16 accounts were identified and flagged as “mule accounts” allegedly being used for facilitating online fraudulent activities, as per communication dated 16.09.2025 issued by the DSP to the SHO, Devendra Nagar, Raipur. During the course of investigation, the applicant was served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS on 11.12.2025 directing his appearance before the Cyber Range Police Station on 21.12.2025, pursuant to which he appeared and was subsequently served with notice under Section 94 of the BNSS and arrested on the same day after due intimation of arrest to his brother. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed the chargesheet bearing No. 23/2026 on 11.03.2026 against 3 the present applicant/accused. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. It is contended that the applicant has no role in the alleged fraud, as stated earlier, the applicant had merely opened a bank account in his own name and for limited consideration of Rs. 7,000/-, permitted one Mr. Sanjay Tharani @ Sanju Ram to use the said account for his business activities, without any knowledge of any illegal transaction. The memorandum statement of the applicant (Annexure A-8) supports this position. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS dated 11.12.2025, the applicant appeared before the Cyber Range Police Station, Raipur, to cooperate in the investigation, however, instead of recording his statement, he was arbitrarily arrested on the same day, which reflects misuse of power by the investigating agency, despite settled law that a cooperating person ought not to be arrested. Similarly, from the notice dated 21.12.2025 under Section 94 BNSS, it is evident that the investigation was still in progress and the applicant was called upon to produce documents relating to an alleged transaction of Rs. 2,000/-, yet he was arrested without being afforded any reasonable opportunity to comply. It is further argued that the applicant’s name does not find mention in the FIR dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure A-10), and he has been implicated solely on the basis that the bank account stands in his name, without any direct or indirect evidence linking him to the offence, 4 thereby establishing absence of mens rea. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022 SCC OnLine SC 929), wherein it has been held that at the stage of bail, the Court must consider the existence of mens rea on broad probabilities. It is also submitted that there is inordinate delay in the lodging of the FIR and investigation, as the alleged incident pertains to the period from 01.01.2024 to 30.06.2025, the specific transaction of Rs. 2,000/- is dated 08.10.2024, the FIR was lodged on 19.09.2025, and the applicant was arrested only on 21.12.2025, which militates against continued detention. Further, the essential ingredients of Section 317 BNSS, knowledge or reason to believe that the property is stolen, are completely absent in the present case. It is additionally submitted that the complaint details (Annexure A-4) refer to one Mohit Rana of ICICI Bank and not the present applicant, the statement of Chandrashekhar Kaushal (Annexure A-11) attributes involvement to co-accused Rohit Pirmani without any reference to the applicant and even the memorandum statement of co-accused Rohit Pirmani (Annexure A-12) does not implicate the applicant, instead naming one Raja @ Rajesh Mandhani as the person procuring such bank accounts. Thus, the applicant is not involved in the alleged offence and the main accused has not yet been arrested and further the applicant is in custody since 21.12.2025 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5 4 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant is actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence and that the investigation has revealed sufÏcient material connecting him to the fraudulent transactions in question. It is contended that the bank account, being in the name of the applicant, was used as a conduit for illegal activities and the plea of handing over operational control to a third person does not absolve him of liability. It is further argued that the offence is serious in nature, involving financial fraud and that releasing the applicant on bail at this stage may adversely affect the ongoing investigation and enable him to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. Therefore, no case for grant of bail is made out. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6 In compliance with the order dated 25.03.2026, the Investigating OfÏcer has filed an afÏdavit stating that, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that Mobile No. 9202295304, registered with the Punjab and Sind Bank account of the present applicant, received an amount of Rs. 1,70,415/- from the complainant’s bank account. It is further disclosed that during the relevant period, the said account was used for cyber fraud transactions, wherein a total sum of Rs. 1,70,415/- was credited and Rs. 1,46,283/- was subsequently withdrawn within a short span of time. The investigation also indicates that the applicant, along 6 with other co-accused, facilitated the use of the said account to deceive innocent persons and misappropriate their money. It is further stated that, in his memorandum statement recorded during investigation, the applicant admitted that he had provided his bank account to one Sanjay Tharani for a consideration of Rs. 7,000/-. Additionally, three complaints have been registered against the accused persons on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal from different States, indicating a pattern of similar offences. The investigation further reveals that the applicant was a beneficiary of the fraudulent transactions, with incriminating material found in his mobile and bank records, thereby prima facie establishing his involvement as part of an organized cyber fraud network. 7 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and the material available on record, this Court find that the total amount alleged to have been credited in the account of the present applicant is Rs. 1,70,415/-, which is comparatively on the lower side. The role of the applicant appears to be limited to providing the bank account and his actual involvement is a matter to be examined during trial. At this stage, further custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and the investigation is substantially complete. Further, the trial is likely to take time to conclude. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the bail application. 8 Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 7 9 Let applicant, Ravi Wadhwani, involved in Crime No.189/2025, registered at Police Station – Range Cyber, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of the B.N.S., be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 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 misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails 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, 8 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 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. 10 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 Kunal