1 2026:CGHC:7864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1533 of 2026 Dilip Kumar Bajaj S/o Ganesh Bajaj Aged About 56 Years R/o Mig 6, Ward -45, Ekta Vihar Near, Anmol Super Bazar, Mahaveer Nagar, Old Amlidhih, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Himansh Thakur and Mr. Ankit Phuljhele, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.02.2026 1. This is First bail application ;led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.129/2025 registered at Police Station-Civil Lines, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the oBence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, for the prevention of cybercrime, the Government of India has established a Cyber Crime Reporting Portal through which victims can report incidents of cyber fraud. On the basis of ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.13 18:17:43 +0530 2 information received through this portal, it came to light that as many as 128 bank accounts opened in diBerent branches of the Bank of Maharashtra at Raipur (IFSC Codes: MAHB0000439, MAHB0001928, MAHB0002335, and MAHB0002400) were being used to receive the proceeds of cyber fraud. Acting upon the said information and in accordance with the directions of the Police Headquarters, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur registered Crime No. 129/2025 under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the BNS. Subsequently, a case was registered against the holders of the said 128 bank accounts, treating them as “mule accounts,” and the matter was transferred to the Cyber Crime Police Station, Raipur for further investigation, as it was alleged that these accounts were being used by cyber criminals for routing and transferring fraudulent funds. It is further alleged that a sum of Rs. 1,26,03,063/- was deposited in the applicant’s bank account bearing No. 60480217361 in the Bank of Maharashtra. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that the complainant, Eliyas Tamboli, along with ;ve others, was defrauded through a UPI fraud to the tune of Rs. 9,600/-, which was reported vide Acknowledgment No. 31903240041088 on the Cyber Crime Portal/1930 of the Ministry of Home ABairs, Government of India. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no direct allegation against the present applicant. He also submits that the applicant has been incarcerated for a considerable period despite being innocent, and such prolonged imprisonment is likely to adversely aBect his mental state. If the applicant is not released on bail forthwith, it would amount to a violation of his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under law. He submits that the applicant was not involved in the alleged oBence and was not engaged in any fraudulent activity 3 whatsoever. The applicant has not committed any criminal act against the complainant. Although the respondent has ;led the charge-sheet, there is no material evidence on record to establish that the applicant has committed any of the oBences alleged therein. He further submits that the FIR has been registered on the basis of information received from the Government of India, Ministry of Home ABairs, by the Cyber Range, and the investigation was also conducted by the Cyber Range itself. From the contents of the complaint as well as the charge-sheet, it appears that the alleged oBence pertains to cyber fraud; however, the Investigating OIcer has failed to properly investigate the cyber angle involved in the matter and has overlooked the contents of the information received. He submits that as per the memorandum of the accused, the bank account alleged to be involved in the oBence was being accessed by some other person through internet means, of which the present applicant had no knowledge. The respondent has not alleged any direct involvement of the applicant in the alleged cyber fraud apart from the seizure of the bank account, nor has any substantive material relating to cyber fraud been produced in the charge-sheet against the applicant. He also submits a co-accused, namely Avinash Tandekar, has already been released on bail vide order dated 08.01.2026 passed in MCRC No. 148/2026. The case of the present applicant stands on similar footing as that of the said co-accused. Another co-accused, namely Ishika Singh, has also been released on bail vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in SLP No. 13678/2025. The case of the present applicant is similar to that of the said co-accused. He submits that the applicant has been in jail since 27.03.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application 4 and submits that, pursuant to information received from the Government of India’s Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, Crime No. 129/2025 was registered regarding 128 “mule accounts” used for routing proceeds of cyber fraud, and the matter was transferred to the Cyber Crime Police Station, Raipur for investigation. It is alleged that the applicant’s bank account was one such mule account, in which Rs. 1,26,03,063/- was deposited. The charge-sheet further discloses that the complainant and others were defrauded through UPI transactions, which were reported on the Cyber Crime Portal. He further submits that similar situated co- accused bail application have also been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5298 of 2025 and MCRC No. 5342 of 2025, MCRC No. 1416 of 2026 vide orders dated 09.07.2025 and 10.02.2026 respectively, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, allegation levelled against the present applicant, involvement of organized serious cyber crime oBence, bail application ;led by the co-accused persons have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5298 of 2025 and MCRC No.5342 of 2025, MCRC No. 1416 of 2026 vide orders dated 09.07.2025 and 10.02.2026 and the case of the applicant is identical to that to the aforementioned co-accused persons, as such without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not a ;t case to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant namely Dilip Kumar Bajaj involved in Crime No.129/2025 registered at Police Station-Civil 5 Lines, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the oBence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of BNS, 2023, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and concluded the trial expeditiously. 9. OIce is directed to send a certi;ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek