Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20684 (CHH)

RAHUL YADAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/4303/2026 · 2026-05-07

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:21718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4303 of 2026 Rahul Yadav S/o Shri Rambaz Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Rajeev Nagar Supela Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Mohan Nagar, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Tandon, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.05.2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 593/2025 registered at Police Station – Mohan Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 111 and 3(5) of the BNS. 2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 29.01.2026 passed in MCRC No.9879/2025, on merits. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Mohan Nagar Police Station registered a crime pursuant to an information passed by Bhartiya Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, which provided information of mule accounts, which were used to utilize the funds obtained through cyber frauds, according to the prosecution 22 Bank RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 accounts of Karnataka Bank has been used as mule account for laundering of crime proceeds. The applicant has been roped in the crime on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. Hence, this application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, and the applicant is roped in the instant case only one the basis of memorandum statement given by the co-accused Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choubey before the Police Officials, and the mobile number registered with the mule account is not of the applicant in the instant case. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 07.11.2025, and the conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant Rahul Yadav knowingly obtained a bank account No. 2042500101375301 from co-accused Pankaj Choubey on rent for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- and used the said account for operating and facilitating illegal betting activities through the Mahadev Book Satta App and scrutiny of the said account reveals suspicious transaction involving credit of Rs. 2,78,82,934/- and debit of Rs. 2,74,74,901/-, and on the same basis the first bail application of the applicant was already rejected by this Court. As such, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case 3 diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the applicant Rahul Yadav knowingly obtained a bank account No. 2042500101375301 from co-accused Pankaj Choubey on rent for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- and used the said account for operating and facilitating illegal betting activities through the Mahadev Book Satta App and scrutiny of the said account reveals suspicious transaction involving credit of Rs. 2,78,82,934/- and debit of Rs. 2,74,74,901/-, and on the same basis the first bail application of the applicant was already rejected by this Court, thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, this second bail application of applicant – Rahul Yadav, involved in Crime No. 593/2025 registered at Police Station – Mohan Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 111 and 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected at this stage. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 10. 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 Rajshekhar