1 CGHC010194432026 2026:CGHC:28598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4573 of 2026 Arya Subal Patel S/o Vedpati Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 32, Bajhinpali Mukhya Basti, Jutmil, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Pussaur, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Applicant : Shri Vedant Shadangi, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. This is the first application for grant of regular bail filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant is in jail since 15.12.2025 in connection with Crime No. 263/2025 registered at Police Station Pussaure, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 111, 3(5) of BNS. The applicant had earlier preferred a bail application before the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. in Bail Application No. 15/2026, which came to be rejected by order dated 16.04.2026. Hence, the present first bail application before this Court. RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.10 11:31:45 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that during the course of investigation, information was received through the Coordination Portal of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, regarding a mule bank account allegedly used for receiving and disbursing the proceeds of cyber fraud. The investigation revealed that an amount of Rs.6,92,200/- had been credited to Karnataka Bank Account No. 9992505054747901. On obtaining the account details, it was found that the said account was in the name of co-accused Ishwar Sidar. During interrogation, Ishwar Sidar disclosed that, at the instance of one Rishi Sidar, he had opened the aforesaid bank account and handed over the passbook to the present applicant, Arya Subal, who was in need of a bank account, and in return received an amount of Rs.1,000/-. On the basis of the material collected during investigation and the memorandum of the co-accused, the applicant has been implicated in the present crime. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the name of the applicant has surfaced only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused and that there is no independent or substantive evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that neither any incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicant nor does the alleged mule bank account belong to him. There is also no material on record to establish his involvement in the alleged cyber fraud. Learned counsel further submits that the 3 applicant was already in judicial custody in connection with another criminal case when the present crime came to be registered and has since been acquitted therein by the competent Court. It is contended that the entire prosecution case rests solely on the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which by itself is not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis for implicating the applicant, particularly when no recovery or discovery has been made pursuant thereto. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 15.12.2025, , the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and his continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment, it is therefore prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. He submits that there is sufficient material collected during the course of investigation to prima facie establish the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. He further submits that the applicant has been specifically named in the FIR and the investigation has also disclosed his role in the commission of the offence. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, he submits that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case diary, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of regular 4 bail to the applicant. The material collected during the course of investigation prima facie indicates that the mule bank account, in which the proceeds of cyber fraud were credited, was opened and handed over for use at the instance of the present applicant. The memorandum statement of the co-accused is not the sole material against the applicant, as the investigation conducted pursuant thereto has also revealed his alleged role in facilitating the operation of the mule bank account used for receiving the proceeds of cyber fraud. At this stage, there is sufficient prima facie material indicating the applicant's involvement in the alleged offence. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the modus operandi adopted in the commission of the alleged cyber fraud, and the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail. The submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant relate to matters of evidence, which shall be considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage and cannot be gone into in detail while considering the present bail application. 8. Accordingly, the first application for grant of regular bail filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is rejected. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance within one week from today. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul