1 2026:CGHC:26944 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5096 of 2026 Churendra Verma S/o Domon Lal Verma Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Khajuri Khana, Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khairagarh District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 519/2025 registered at Police Station– Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), and 61(2)(a) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 66 of the I.T. Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, in brief, during investigation pursuant to a communication dated 24.11.2025 received from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Chhattisgarh, regarding suspicious Layer-1 mule bank accounts, the Cyber Cell found that three bank RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 accounts maintained with the Bank of Maharashtra, Khairagarh Branch, bearing Account Nos. 60514132040, 60523757414 and 60527815497, were allegedly being used for routing the proceeds of cyber fraud committed against numerous victims across different States of the country. It is alleged that an aggregate amount of Rs. 8,65,16,376/- (Rupees Eight Crores Sixty-Five Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Six only) was fraudulently received and transacted through the said accounts. The prosecution further alleges that the present applicant facilitated the operation of the said accounts and received commission for permitting their use in the illegal transactions. It is further alleged that, in his memorandum statement, the applicant disclosed that the said bank accounts were linked with mobile numbers belonging to the co-accused persons and that he had provided access to the accounts for carrying out the fraudulent transactions. On the basis of the material collected during investigation, the applicant has been implicated for his alleged active role in facilitating the commission of the cyber fraud. During the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is contended that the applicant has been arraigned as an accused merely on the basis of his memorandum statement and certain banking transactions, without there being any direct or cogent evidence to establish his conscious involvement in the alleged 3 cyber fraud. It is further submitted that there is no allegation that the applicant ever contacted, induced or cheated any victim, or dishonestly represented himself to any person for the purpose of committing the alleged fraud. He also submits that the entire prosecution case rests upon documentary and electronic evidence, all of which has already been seized by the Investigating Agency. It is argued that mere receipt or routing of money through a bank account, in the absence of evidence demonstrating conscious knowledge, criminal intent or active participation in the alleged offence, cannot by itself constitute the offences alleged against the applicant. He also submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since his arrest, and his continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment, thereby infringing his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784, and Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, to contend that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and that grant of bail is the rule while refusal is an exception. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court, he has no previous criminal antecedents, and the present applicant is in jail since 22.01.2026 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave and pertain to a well-organized cyber fraud involving huge financial transactions affecting victims across different States of the country. It is submitted that, pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 04.06.2026, the Investigating Officer has filed a detailed personal affidavit placing on record the evidence collected during investigation. The affidavit reveals that, on the basis of information received from the Police Headquarters, Raipur regarding Layer-1 mule accounts, three bank accounts maintained with the Bank of Maharashtra, Khairagarh Branch, including Account Nos. 60514132040, 60523757414 and 60527815497, were identified as mule accounts used for routing proceeds of cyber fraud, through which an aggregate amount of Rs. 8,65,16,376/- was credited and transacted within a short span of time. It is further submitted that the investigation has disclosed the involvement of six accused persons, out of whom two are still absconding, and continuous efforts are being made to apprehend them. Multiple cyber fraud complaints lodged by victims from different States, including Chhattisgarh and Gujarat, were found to be linked with the aforesaid accounts. Learned State counsel further submits that the memorandum statement of co-accused Narad Rajak reveals that he had opened a bank account in the name of “Rajak Auto Parts” on the instructions of co-accused Bhojram Verma by using his own KYC documents and thereafter handed over the account kit, ATM card and SIM card in 5 consideration of Rs.30,000/-, out of which he received Rs.20,000/-. The affidavit further discloses that all the account holders knowingly permitted their accounts to be used for receiving and routing cyber fraud money and were beneficiaries of the illegal transactions. It is further submitted that cash amounts of Rs.20,000/- were seized from co-accused Bhojram Verma, Rs.1,000/- from Yagyadutt Yadav, Rs.6,000/- from Narad Rajak, and Rs.500/- each from Chunendra Verma and Rashid Book pursuant to their memorandum statements. The memorandum statement of the present applicant, Chunendra Verma, also discloses that he acted as an intermediary by procuring the bank account, ATM card and linked mobile number from co-accused Yagyadutt Yadav and supplying the same to the main accused Yuvraj Gandharv, retaining Rs.500/- out of Rs.5,000/- received by him. The investigation further reveals that an amount of Rs.1,59,35,194/- was credited into the aforesaid mule account, out of which Rs.1,57,25,460/- was withdrawn, leaving a balance of Rs.2,09,734/-, and that seven cyber complaints are directly linked to the said account, which was used for Layer-1 cyber fraud transactions. It is, therefore, submitted that the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the applicant’s active participation in a criminal conspiracy for facilitating cyber fraud by arranging mule bank accounts and banking instruments, and considering the serious nature of the economic offence, the magnitude of the fraud, the organized conspiracy and the continuing investigation against the absconding accused, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available in the case diary, the charge-sheet and the personal affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the order of this Court dated 04.06.2026, the affidavit prima facie reveals that three bank accounts maintained with the Bank of Maharashtra, Khairagarh Branch, including Account Nos. 60514132040, 60523757414 and 60527815497, were identified as Layer-1 mule accounts through which an aggregate amount of Rs.8,65,16,376/- was fraudulently credited and routed in connection with cyber fraud committed against victims from different States of the country. The investigation further discloses that six accused persons are involved in the offence, out of whom two are still absconding, and that several cyber fraud complaints lodged through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal have been traced to the aforesaid accounts. The material collected during investigation, including the memorandum statements of the co-accused and the present applicant, prima facie indicates that the applicant acted as an intermediary in procuring and supplying bank accounts, ATM cards and mobile numbers linked with the accounts to the main accused for use in cyber fraud, and also received monetary consideration for the same. The affidavit further reveals that cash was recovered from the accused persons pursuant to their memorandum statements and that an amount of Rs.1,59,35,194/- was credited into one of the 7 mule accounts, out of which Rs.1,57,25,460/- was withdrawn within a short period, thereby prima facie demonstrating systematic routing and withdrawal of the proceeds of cyber fraud. The investigation also indicates that the accused persons knowingly permitted their bank accounts to be used for illegal financial transactions and acted in concert with each other pursuant to a criminal conspiracy to facilitate cyber fraud and derive unlawful monetary gain. Thus, considering the serious nature of the allegations, the magnitude of the financial transactions involved, the prima facie material demonstrating the applicant’s active role in the organized conspiracy, the continuing investigation against the absconding co-accused, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Churendra Verma, involved in Crime No. 519/2025 registered at Police Station– Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), and 61(2)(a) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 66 of the I.T. Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. 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 Rahul Dewangan