1 2026:CGHC:22364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 564 of 2026 Raju Bagh S/o Malkham Bagh Aged About 40 Years R/o Verma Chowk, Padumnagar, P.S. Purani Bhilai, Tehsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., Police Station Utai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.350/2025, registered at Police Station- Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 317(2), 318(4), 61(2) of B.N.S. 2023 and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act. ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.15 13:51:32 +0530 2 2. That, the prosecution story in brief is that the present Applicant, in connivance with co-accused M. Pankaj and other persons, allegedly operated a Mule Bank Account bearing IDFC Bank Account No. 10086039636 for the purpose of layering and routing proceeds of cyber fraud. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that an amount of approximately ₹29.50 Lakhs, alleged to be derived from cyber-crime activities, was transacted through the said account. It is further alleged that the Applicant facilitated the illegal transactions and, in lieu thereof, paid an amount of ₹20,000/- as commission to co- accused M. Pankaj. On the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused and other material collected during investigation, the present Applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 318(4), 61(2) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the IT Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of co- accused M. Pankaj, which is inadmissible in evidence. It is further submitted that the co-accused M. Pankaj, who is the actual account holder from whose possession the bank documents, ATM card, cheque book and registered mobile SIM 3 were seized, has already been granted regular bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 14.01.2026 passed in MCRC No.9233/2025 and, therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel further submits that there is no money trail connecting the Applicant with the alleged cyber fraud transactions and even the bank statements do not support the prosecution story regarding payment of commission. It is also submitted that no criminal antecedent is pending against the applicant except one old antecedent of the year 2012, which has already been disposed of. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the present case involves serious allegations relating to cyber fraud and illegal routing of approximately ₹29.50 Lakhs through bank accounts operated in connivance with the co-accused. It was argued that the memorandum statement of co-accused M. Pankaj, coupled with the digital and banking records collected during investigation, prima facie establish the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel further submitted that cyber offences have serious repercussions on society and the financial system and, therefore, no liberal approach is warranted in such 4 matters. It was also contended that, if released on bail, the applicant may influence witnesses or tamper with the evidence; hence, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary it appears that the name of the present applicant has surfaced only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused and that no criminal antecedent is pending against him except one disposed of case of the year 2012, considering the nature and gravity of allegations, the memorandum statement of co-accused M. Pankaj, digital and banking records, and the allegation regarding illegal routing of approximately ₹29.50 Lakhs derived from cyber fraud, this Court finds prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of offence. Cyber offences have serious repercussions on society and the financial system. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Raju Bagh involved in Crime No.350/2025, registered at Police 5 Station- Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 317(2), 318(4), 61(2) of B.N.S. 2023 and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Arpan