1 CGHC010206852026 2026:CGHC:30231 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5154 of 2026 1 - Randhir Shah S/o Shri Suresh Shah Aged About 33 Years Occupation- Business, R/o House No. 153 Gali No. 6 Jeevan Park, Siraspur, Police Station Samaypurbadli, North West, Delhi (Delhi) 2 - Aman Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Rajkumar Aged About 26 Years Occupation Business, R/o N-44/112 Sanjay Colony, Samaypurbadli, Police Station Samaypurbadli, North West, Delhi 3 - Khirod Kumar Behra Shri Bhaguni Behra Aged About 33 Years Occupation- Private Job, R/o Gali No. 9/103, Uit Bhiwadi, District- Bhiwadi, Alwar (Rajasthan) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Cyber Range Police Station Ambikapur, District- Sarguja ...Non-applicant For Applicants : 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 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.20 16:34:13 +0530 2 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Police Station – Cyber Range Police Station, Ambikapur District – Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 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. 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 "Sky Trade", 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 applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are not made out, as the complainant, despite lodging the complaint on 3 03.03.2025, voluntarily continued to transfer money on 03.04.2025, 04.04.2025 and 08.04.2025, which is wholly inconsistent with the allegation of deception or dishonest inducement. It is further submitted that the applicant's arrest is illegal, as the mandatory provisions of Sections 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C. (now corresponding provisions under the BNSS) were not complied with, no notice was served upon the applicant, and the written grounds of arrest, as required by law, were never furnished to him. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR, no part of the alleged cheated amount has been transferred to or recovered from the applicant, and there is no material to establish any financial nexus between the applicant and the alleged proceeds of crime. It is argued that the prosecution case against the applicant rests solely on the memorandum/disclosure statement of a co-accused, which has no independent evidentiary value in the absence of any recovery or corroborative material. It is also submitted that the entire case is based on documentary and electronic evidence, including bank records and digital trails, which are already in the possession of the investigating agency, and, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is not a flight risk, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is also submitted that the co-accused persons, namely, Rohan Kandera, Vishal Yadav, Chetan, Sandeep Sharma and Saurabh Mahur, have already been granted regular bail by this Hon'ble Court, and the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing as that of the said co-accused. It is further submitted that 4 the learned Trial Court rejected the applicant's bail application without recording any specific finding regarding his individual role and mechanically rejected the application by making general observations. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicants be enlarged on regular 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 the data recovered from the mobile phone of another accused prima facie establish the applicant's role in the creation of GoPayment IDs, which were allegedly used to facilitate the commission of the offence. The investigation further reveals that the applicant was closely associated with the co-accused and had instructed them to delete electronic data after the police initiated the inquiry. It is further alleged that the applicant himself deleted relevant data from his mobile phone in an attempt 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, prima facie indicates the applicant's involvement in the offence. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicants are not entitled to 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 of the 5 allegations, the fact that the applicants are not named in the FIR, and that the prosecution case against them primarily rests on the memorandum/disclosure statement of a co-accused, which, by itself, has no independent evidentiary value, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail. It is also noticed that no part of the alleged cheated amount has been recovered from or traced to the applicants, nor is there any prima facie material on record to show that they were beneficiaries of the alleged proceeds of crime. It is also noticed that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and that the co-accused persons, namely, Rohan Kandera, Vishal Yadav, Chetan, Sandeep Sharma and Saurabh Mahur, have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10335 of 2025, M.Cr.C. No. 10457 of 2025, M.Cr.C. No. 10048 of 2025, and M.Cr.C. No. 10072 of 2025. Prima facie, the role attributed to the present applicants is neither distinguishable from nor graver than that attributed to the aforesaid co-accused persons. Therefore, the applicants are also entitled to the benefit of parity. Further, as the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicants. 7. Let the Applicants – Randhir Shah, Aman Kumar Jaiswal & Khirod Kumar Behra involved in Crime No.03/2025 registered at Police Station – Cyber Range Police Station, Ambikapur District – Surguja (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 6 sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 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 applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the 7 trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them 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