1 CGHC010169592026 2026:CGHC:30237 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4151 of 2026 Mayank Goyal S/o Shri Girishchand Goyal Aged About 28 Years Occupation - Advocate (Registration No. D/3501/2022/delhi), R/o M.N.-69-70 Ugf-2, Royal Garden, Awantika - 2 Near Mehroli Railway Station Gaziyabad, Police Station - Kavinagar, District - Ghaziabad (U.P.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Range Cyber Sarguja Ambikapur (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harsh Verma and Mr. Nikhil Mehta, Advocates. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.07.2026 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. 03/2025 registered at Police Station – Range Cyber Sarguja Ambikapur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 318 (4), VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.20 15:43:43 +0530 2 3 (5), 317 (4), 111 of B.N.S and Section 66 (d) I.T. Act, 21(1), 21(2), 21(3) Irregular Deposit Schemes (Prohibition of Deposit) Act, 2019. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Ravi Mohan Goswami, submitted a written complaint before the In-charge, Cyber Range Police Station, alleging that he is engaged in share-market trading and had received calls from several unknown mobile numbers, including 8570064555, 8424855648, 8395943211, and 9991991448. The callers allegedly induced him to invest money in share trading by assuring him of high and guaranteed returns. It is alleged that they persuaded the complainant to install mobile applications, namely "Money Trade 365" and "SkyTrade", and thereafter directed him to deposit money through QR codes and online transfers. Believing their representations and after seeing false profits reflected in the applications, the complainant transferred a total amount of Rs.20,15,000/-. During the course of investigation, the present applicant was implicated in the alleged offence and was arrested on 10.04.2026. Since then, the applicant has been in judicial custody. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is a practicing advocate and was arrested while attending court proceedings at Jodhpur to represent his client, despite there being no direct allegation against him either in the FIR or in the statement of the complainant. The prosecution case against the applicant rests solely on the memorandum/disclosure statement of a co-accused, which has no independent evidentiary value, and there is no material to show that the applicant was a beneficiary of the alleged 3 defrauded amount or was operating any of the alleged trading applications. It is further submitted that the applicant was not served with any notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS before his arrest, nor was he informed in writing of the grounds of arrest as required under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. The entire case is based on banking transactions, digital records and documentary evidence, all of which are already in the possession of the investigating agency; therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. It is also submitted that several co-accused have already been granted regular bail by this Court as well as by the learned Sessions Court on the principle of parity. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and he is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title. There is no likelihood of his absconding or influencing the prosecution witnesses, and he undertakes to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the investigation has revealed the active involvement of the applicant in an organised cyber fraud syndicate. It is submitted that the memorandum statements of the co-accused, call detail records, tower location analysis, and data recovered from the mobile phone of another accused prima facie establish the applicant's role in the creation of GoPayment IDs used for facilitating the commission of the offence. The investigation further reveals that the applicant was closely associated with the co-accused and had instructed them to 4 delete electronic data after the police initiated the inquiry. It is also alleged that the applicant himself deleted relevant data from his mobile phone to conceal electronic evidence. Though similar FIRs have been registered in different States against other members of the syndicate, the material collected during the investigation, coupled with the seriousness of the allegations involving a large-scale economic cyber fraud, disentitles the applicant from the benefit of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, including the allegation that the applicant was hired to facilitate the commission of the alleged offence, the fact that the prosecution case against the applicant primarily rests on the memorandum/disclosure statement of a co-accused, which, by itself, has no independent evidentiary value, and that there is no material on record to prima facie show that the applicant was a beneficiary of the alleged defrauded amount or was operating any of the alleged trading applications, further considering that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that his case stands on the same footing as that of the co-accused, namely, Sandeep Sharma, Saurabh Mahur and Rohan Kandera, who have already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 10072 of 2025 and MCRC No. 10335 of 2025 vide order dated 05.02.2026, and taking into account that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 10.04.2026, that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is 5 inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Mayank Goyal, involved in Crime No.03/2025 registered at Police Station – Range Cyber Sarguja Ambikapur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section Section 318 (4), 3 (5), 317 (4), 111 of B.N.S and Section 66 (d) I.T. Act, 21(1), 21(2), 21(3) Irregular Deposit Schemes (Prohibition of Deposit) Act, 2019, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion 6 of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 8. 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