1 / 10 CGHC010192562026 2026:CGHC:28594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4591 of 2026 Pradeep Kumar Uike S/o Late Bhole Singh Uike Aged About 38 Years Residence of Shitla Para Near Shitla Mandir Village- Rasmada Tahsil & District- Durg (C.G.) --- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Supela Bhiali District- Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA MCRC No. 5117 of 2026 Dharmendra Singh S/o Surendra Singh Aged About 26 Years, Behind Digambar Jain Temple Ward No.- 24 Deepak Nagar Durg District Durg C.G. --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Supela Bhilai District Durg C.G. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Devendra Kumar Swarnakar, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.10 11:33:21 +0530 2 / 10 MCRC No. 4957 of 2026 Sanni Chouhan S/o Sadhuni Chouhan Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Shriram Chowk, Ramnagar Muktidham, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava,GA MCRC No. 4689 of 2026 Aarti Markandey W/o Nand Kumar Markandey Aged About 26 Years R/o Chandni Chowk Kohka Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Supela Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Ahmed Ayaan Mirza, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA (Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice) Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. Since all these bail applications arise out of the same Crime No.32/2025 and involve common facts and emanate from the same investigation, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3 / 10 2. These first bail applications have been preferred by the applicants under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicants were arrested on 17.4.2026, 16.4.2026, 16.4.2026 and 16.4.2026 respectively in connection with Crime No.32/2025 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita., 2023. 3. (I) As per the prosecution case, during scrutiny of suspicious bank accounts through the "Samanvaya Portal" developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, it came to the notice of the investigating agency that as many as 105 bank accounts maintained in the Federal Bank, Supela Branch, District Durg, were being used as mule accounts for routing the proceeds of cyber frauds committed across different States of the country. On verification of the debit-freeze reports and the transaction details supplied by the bank, it was found that an aggregate amount of ₹1,02,34,307/- had been credited into those accounts through various cyber fraud transactions. On the basis of the said information, the present crime came to be registered and investigation was undertaken. (II) During investigation, the statements of the Branch Manager and other officials of Federal Bank, Supela Branch were recorded. The details of the debit-freeze accounts, KYC documents and transaction particulars were collected. Investigation further revealed that the present applicants were holders of different bank accounts which, according to the prosecution, were knowingly made available for receiving the 4 / 10 proceeds of cyber fraud. The applicants were thereafter arrested and since then they are in judicial custody. Investigation is still in progress. (III) So far as applicant Aarti Markandey is concerned, the prosecution alleges that an amount of ₹87,000/- was credited through an OnLine transaction into Federal Bank Account No.25030100006871 standing in her name. According to the investigating agency, the said account formed part of the network of mule accounts used for routing the proceeds of cyber fraud. (IV) In respect of applicant Sanni Chauhan, investigation revealed that amounts of ₹4,500/-, ₹121/- and ₹49,844/- were credited into Federal Bank Account No.25030100006707. During investigation, his memorandum statement was recorded wherein he allegedly disclosed that he had handed over the bank account to one Sujit Kumar Sahu, who thereafter utilized the account for receiving the cheated amount. (V) As regards applicant Pradeep Kumar Uike, the prosecution case is that amounts of ₹50,000/-, ₹16,090/- and ₹5,00,000/- were credited into Account No.99980123348463 and the investigation connects the said account with the applicant. Though the applicant disputes the ownership of the said account and contends that it pertains to another branch, according to the prosecution the material collected during investigation establishes his involvement and further investigation is underway regarding the money trail. (VI) Insofar as applicant Dharmendra Singh is concerned, investigation revealed that an amount of ₹2,00,000/- was credited into Federal Bank 5 / 10 Account No.25030100007770. During investigation, his memorandum statement was recorded wherein he allegedly disclosed that he had provided the said account to one Pankaj Maheshiya, who used it for receiving the proceeds of cyber fraud. 4. Learned counsel appearing for applicant Aarti Markandey submits that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is contended that merely because an amount was credited into her account, no inference of conscious participation in the alleged cyber fraud can be drawn. She is a young lady earning her livelihood as a daily wager and has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the amount was neither utilized by her nor has the prosecution collected any material to demonstrate that she was aware of the source of the money. Learned counsel further submits that she is suffering from asthma and thyroid-related ailments, has remained in custody since 16.04.2026 and there is no likelihood of her absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, it is prayed that she be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned counsel for applicant Sanni Chauhan submits that he is a student and is preparing for competitive examinations. It is argued that he has no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of transactions reflected in his bank account. According to learned counsel, no material has been collected to show that the applicant himself induced any victim or was involved in the commission of cyber fraud. It is submitted that the prosecution is relying only upon the memorandum statement, which by itself is insufficient to establish his complicity. It is, therefore, prayed that the applicant be released on 6 / 10 regular bail. 6. Learned counsel appearing for applicant Pradeep Kumar Uike submits that the very foundation of the prosecution case is erroneous inasmuch as the account relied upon by the prosecution does not belong to the applicant. It is argued that the account number and IFSC details demonstrate that the account pertains to another branch of the bank and not to Federal Bank, Supela Branch. It is further submitted that no account opening form, KYC documents, specimen signatures or any other material has been collected to connect the applicant with the alleged account. He is in detention since 17.4.2026. On these premises, it is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated and deserves to be released on bail. 7. Learned counsel appearing for applicant Dharmendra Singh submits that the applicant is innocent and has no connection with the alleged cyber fraud. It is contended that except the alleged memorandum statement and the fact that money was credited into the account standing in his name, there is no independent material indicating his conscious participation in the commission of the offence. The applicant has remained in custody since 16.04.2026, investigation is substantially documentary in nature and no further custodial interrogation is required. Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes all the bail applications and submits that the present case does not pertain to an isolated transaction but relates to a well-organized cyber fraud racket wherein as many as 7 / 10 105 mule bank accounts maintained with Federal Bank, Supela Branch were utilized for routing the proceeds of cyber fraud committed against innocent victims residing in different States of the country. It is submitted that during investigation, an aggregate amount of ₹1,02,34,307/- has been found to have been routed through the said accounts. The investigation has further disclosed the active role of the present applicants in facilitating the commission of the offence by making available their respective bank accounts for receiving the proceeds of crime. It is argued that the investigation is at a crucial stage and the money trail, the identity of other beneficiaries and the larger conspiracy are yet to be unearthed. Learned State counsel further submits that economic offences of this nature have serious repercussions on society and the financial system and, therefore, deserve a different approach while considering the prayer for bail. It is also pointed out that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been denied the benefit of bail by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that all the bail applications be rejected. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the case diary as well as the material placed on record. 10. The material collected during investigation prima facie reveals that the present crime pertains to an organized cyber fraud in which a large number of bank accounts were allegedly used as mule accounts for receiving money dishonestly obtained from victims residing in different parts of the country. The investigation further reveals that substantial amounts were credited into the accounts standing in the names of the 8 / 10 present applicants and the investigating agency has collected material to connect such transactions with the proceeds of cyber fraud. The investigation is still continuing and the money trail, the role of the beneficiaries and the larger conspiracy are yet to be completely unearthed. 11. So far as Aarti Markandey is concerned, the case diary prima facie indicates that an amount of ₹87,000/- was credited into the bank account maintained in her name. The contention that she neither withdrew nor utilized the amount or that she had no knowledge regarding the transaction constitutes a matter of defence, which can appropriately be examined only during trial after appreciation of evidence. At this stage, the material available in the case diary cannot be ignored merely on the basis of such explanation. In respect of Sanni Chauhan, the investigation reveals that multiple transactions amounting to ₹4,500/-, ₹121/- and ₹49,844/- were credited into his account. Apart from the banking transactions, the prosecution has also relied upon his memorandum statement wherein he is alleged to have disclosed that he had handed over his bank account to one Sujit Kumar Sahu. Whether such disclosure ultimately establishes his culpability is a matter to be determined during trial; however, at this stage, the said material lends support to the prosecution case and cannot be brushed aside while considering the prayer for bail. As regards Pradeep Kumar Uike, though learned counsel has vehemently contended that the account relied upon by the prosecution does not belong to the applicant and has questioned the account particulars as well as the IFSC details, such submissions involve 9 / 10 disputed questions of fact requiring detailed examination of documentary evidence. At the stage of consideration of bail, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of such disputed factual issues. Prima facie, the investigating agency has collected material connecting the applicant with the transactions involving ₹50,000/-, ₹16,090/- and ₹5,00,000/-, and therefore this Court is not persuaded to record any finding in favour of the applicant at this stage. 12. Insofar as Dharmendra Singh is concerned, the material available in the case diary indicates that ₹2,00,000/- was credited into the account maintained in his name and the prosecution has further relied upon his memorandum statement wherein he is alleged to have disclosed that he had provided the account to one Pankaj Maheshiya. The said material, coupled with the ongoing investigation relating to the money trail, prima facie discloses his involvement in the alleged offence. 13. The submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants that they are merely account holders, that no victim has identified them, that the investigation is documentary in nature or that they have remained in custody for some time, are matters which, in the considered opinion of this Court, are insufficient to outweigh the gravity of the allegations at this stage. The offence alleged is not confined to an individual act of cheating but forms part of a larger organized cyber fraud affecting numerous victims across different States. Economic offences involving cyber fraud are committed with calculated design and have serious repercussions on public confidence in digital banking and financial institutions. Therefore, while considering an application for bail in such 10 / 10 matters, the nature of the accusation, the manner of commission of the offence, the magnitude of the fraud and the requirement of a fair and unhindered investigation are relevant considerations. 14. The investigation is admittedly still in progress. The prosecution is in the process of tracing the flow of funds, identifying the beneficiaries and collecting further electronic and documentary evidence. At this stage, this Court cannot rule out the possibility that release of the applicants may adversely affect the ongoing investigation. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the individual role attributed to each of the applicants, the stage of investigation and the fact that similarly situated co-accused have already been denied the benefit of bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that none of the applicants has made out a case for grant of regular bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, all the four first bail applications are rejected. SD/- SD/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul