1 CGHC010154252026 2026:CGHC:27763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3728 of 2026 Vishal Sahu S/o Pappu Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Pampapur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar District- Surajpur (C.G.) ...Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) … Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 485/2025, registered at Police Station : Surajpur, District- Surajpur(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4),318(2),61(2)(A) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.07 17:35:44 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief is that several complaints have been made by the victims of cyber fraud. During investigation of such complaint, accused Tuleshwar Rajwade has been arrested by the police of police station Surajpur. Thereafter, the co-accused Tuleshwar Rajwade in his memorandum statement had stated that the present applicant/accused took his ATM card and SIM card under the pretext of returning them after withdrawing some money. Subsequently the applicant refused to return the ATM and SIM card. Acting in an organized manner committed Cyber fraud by withdrawing sum of Rs. 11,48,889 from the account of accused Tuleshwar Rajwade. On the basis of said memorandum the present applicant has been arrested by the Police of Police Station Surajpur. In connection with Crime no. 485/25 under Section 317 (4), 318 (2), 61(2) (A) of BNS and 66 (D) of IT Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a mala fide intention and has not committed any offence. It is contended that the name of the applicant does not find mention in the FIR and that he has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement, which has no evidentiary value by itself. It is further submitted that there is no prima facie material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence and the prosecution case is based on weak, doubtful and fabricated evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 26.11.2025, the investigation has been completed and the charge- sheet has already been filed, and, therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is also submitted that the alleged 3 offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of his absconding or interfering with the due process of law, and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed. It is submitted that the present case has been registered as Crime No. 485/2025 at Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Learned State counsel further submitted that, during the investigation, it was revealed that UCO Bank Account No. 30790110059937, standing in the name of co-accused Tuleshwar Rajwade, was used for cyber fraud transactions, in respect of which 14 online complaints involving an amount of Rs.11,48,899/- were registered by victims from various States through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (1930). It is further submitted that the memorandum statement of co- accused Tuleshwar Rajwade revealed that he had handed over his ATM card, mobile number and bank account details to the present applicant, Vishal Sahu. The memorandum statement of the present applicant further disclosed that he had, in turn, provided the said bank account to co-accused Saurabh Sahu in consideration of Rs.10,000/-. Learned State counsel also submitted that the bank records collected during the investigation reveal that an amount of Rs.43,84,451/- was credited to the account of co-accused Tuleshwar Rajwade, out of 4 which Rs.42,83,887.27/- was withdrawn, and that an amount of Rs.17,61,543/- was credited to the applicant's own UCO Bank account within a short span of time, almost the entire amount having been withdrawn thereafter. It is further submitted that the bail application of the co-accused has already been rejected by this Court and the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the material collected during the investigation, and the rejection of the bail application of the co- accused, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail and the present bail application deserves to be dismissed. 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 case diary and the material collected during the investigation, this Court finds that the investigation prima facie reveals the involvement of the applicant in the alleged cyber fraud. As per the prosecution case, the co-accused handed over his ATM card, mobile number and bank account details to the applicant, who thereafter provided the same to another co-accused for monetary consideration. The bank transaction details further reveal that substantial amounts were credited to and withdrawn from the bank accounts of the applicant and the co-accused within a short span of time, and several complaints of cyber fraud have been registered in relation to the said transactions. This Court also takes note of the fact that the bail application of the co-accused has already been rejected by this Court and the applicant has not pointed out any distinguishing 5 circumstance to claim parity. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the material collected during the investigation, and the role attributed to the applicant, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the accused/applicant is rejected. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Vishal Sahu involved in Crime No. 485/2025, registered at Police Station : Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4),318(2),61(2)(A) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, is rejected 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial 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 vaibhav