1 2026:CGHC:21450 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2033 of 2026 Kallu Mansuri S/o Ibrahim Mansuri Aged About 50 Years R/o 105, Ashoka Colony, Manikbagh Road, Distt. Indore, M.P. --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Amanaka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. MCRC No. 3288 of 2026 Poonamchand Verma S/o Premchand Verma Aged About 54 Years R/o Jabran Colony, Behind Community Hall, Distt. Indore, Madhya Pradesh ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Of Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. ----Non-applicant(s) ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.11 16:43:58 +0530 2 For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma,Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. For Objector : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/05/2026 1. Since the above two bail applications are arising out of same crime number and same offence so they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.153/2025, registered at Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS and 3(5) of the BNS 2023 (In MCRC No.2033/ 2026), offence under Sections 318(4) of the BNS and 66D of the Information Technology Act (In MCRC No.3288/2026). 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.05.2025, the complainant Rahul Kumar Rohit, a doctor by profession, lodged a report alleging that through a matrimonial website he came in contact with one Dr. Radhika Mukherjee, who induced him over mobile number 7357468406 to invest money in a forex trading platform namely “+500 Global CS” 3 with an assurance of high financial returns. It is alleged that on her inducement, the complainant arranged funds by taking loans from various sources and invested a total amount of Rs.46,00,000/-. During investigation, it was found that a part of the said amount, i.e., Rs.50,000/-, was transferred to the bank account of the present applicant maintained with IDFC First Bank Account No. 52410197119, and on this basis, the applicant has been implicated in the case and the offence has been registered. 4. In MCRC No.2033/2026:- Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has been arrayed as an accused merely on the basis of the memorandum/statement of co-accused, without any independent documentary or electronic evidence against him. It is also submitted that the complainant was allegedly induced by co-accused Dr. Radhika Mukherjee to invest in “Plus 500 Global CS Trading” and the applicant has no direct or indirect connection with the complainant or the alleged transactions, nor has any amount been credited to his account with any criminal intent. It is further submitted that 4 the applicant is in custody since 15.12.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and he has no previous criminal antecedents. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted the benefit of bail. 5. In MCRC No.3288/2926:-Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case without any role in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant’s name does not figure in the FIR and he has been implicated only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused, whereas he is a vendor of potatoes and had provided his bank account details to co- accused Kallu Mansuri only for bona fide business transactions. It is also submitted that the amount of Rs.50,000/- credited in his account has no criminal nexus and the main allegations are against co-accused Dr. Radhika Mukherjee, while the complainant himself is an educated person who voluntarily invested the amount. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and is in custody since 15.12.2025. Therefore, considering the absence of direct evidence and long custody, it is prayed that the 5 applicant be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge sheet has been filed in the present case there is no previous criminal antecedents further the allegations against the applicants are serious in nature involving organized cyber fraud wherein the complainant was induced to invest a substantial amount in a fake forex trading platform. It is further submitted that during investigation, part of the defrauded amount was found to have been transferred into the bank account of the applicant, thereby establishing his prima facie involvement in the chain of transactions. Learned State counsel contends that the defence taken by the applicant regarding lack of knowledge and business transaction is a matter of evidence and cannot be examined at the stage of bail. It is also submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for effective investigation of the money trail, and therefore he does not deserve the benefit of bail. 7. In MCRC No.3288/2026, learned counsel appearing for the objector submits that she has no objection in granting bail to the applicants. 6 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and upon perusal of the case diary, it reveals that the complainant Rahul Kumar Rohit received a call, wherein the caller introduced herself as “Radhika Mukherjee” and, by deceitful inducement, persuaded him to invest money in an online trading platform on the assurance of high returns. Acting upon such inducement, the complainant invested a total amount of Rs. 46 lakhs in various bank accounts. Subsequently, upon realizing that he had been cheated, the complainant lodged the report, resulting in registration of the offence. During investigation, it has been found that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was credited in the bank account bearing No. 52410197119 maintained with IDFC First Bank, which is linked to the present applicant. It has further emerged during investigation that the said account was allegedly provided by the applicant to co-accused persons for facilitating transactions arising out of the alleged cyber fraud. In view of 7 the material collected during investigation, prima facie involvement of the applicant in the transaction chain is established. Accordingly, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant bail to the applicants. 10. Accordingly the bail applications of the applicants namely- Kallu Mansuri and Poonamchandra Verma involved in Crime No.153/2025, registered at Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS and 3(5) of the BNS 2023 (In MCRC No.2033/ 2026), offence under Sections 318(4) of the BNS and 66D of the Information Technology Act (In MCRC No.3288/2026), is rejected. 11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 12. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Arpan