1 CGHC010206542026 2026:CGHC:30233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4920 of 2026 1 - Vicky Kumar @ Anurag (Rocky) S/o Shri Ramakant Singh Aged About 21 Years Occupation Private Job, R/o Gram Asnii, Thana - Udwantnagar, District Bhojpur, Arrah (Bihar) 2 - Ramdeep Kumar @ Shibu S/o Shri Lal Bahadur Singh Aged About 31 Years Occupation Private Job, R/o Gram Asnii, Thana - Udwantnagar, District Bhojpur, Arrah (Bihar) 3 - Nitin Ginotra S/o Shri Shamji Das Aged About 38 Years R/o Ranchi Jharkhand, Harimati Apartment, Flat No. A-1, Barghmaan Compound, Lalpur-RanchiJharkhand ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Cyber Range Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Nikhil Mehata and Mr. Harsh Verma Advocate. 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 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.20 14:30:36 +0530 2 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 the B.N.S & Section 66 (D) of the I.T. Act & 21(1),21(2),21(3) of the Banning Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Ravi Mohan Goswami, aged about 44 years, resident of Sadar Road, Ambikapur, submitted a written complaint before the Incharge, Cyber (Chhattisgarh). Range Police Station, stating that he is a share-market trader and, during the year 2024, he received calls from several unknown mobile numbers, including 8570064555, 8424855648, 8395943211 and 9991991448, whose callers induced him to invest money in share trading by promising high and assured profits. It is alleged that the said persons persuaded him to install applications such as "Money Trade 365" and "SkyTrade" from the Play Store and thereafter asked him to make deposits through QR codes and online transfers. The complainant states that, after an initial false display of profits in the said applications, he transferred a cumulative amount of Rs.20,15,000/- 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case without there being any cogent or legally admissible material 3 connecting him with the alleged offence. It is contended that the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are conspicuously absent, inasmuch as the complainant, despite lodging the complaint on 03.03.2025, voluntarily continued to transfer money on 03.04.2025, 04.04.2025 and 08.04.2025, which itself demolishes the allegation of deception or dishonest inducement and indicates that the transactions were made voluntarily. It is further submitted that the applicant's arrest is illegal, as the mandatory provisions of Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with. No notice under Section 41A CrPC was ever served upon the applicant, nor was any satisfaction note under Section 41(1)(b) CrPC prepared before effecting the arrest, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. It is also argued that the applicant was never supplied with the written grounds of arrest as mandated under Section 50(1) CrPC, Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Madhya Pradesh, thereby rendering his continued detention illegal. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution case itself is inherently doubtful, as while the FIR alleges cheating to the tune of approximately Rs.20 lakhs, the prosecution material reveals that the complainant himself transferred only Rs.1 lakh from his own account, whereas 4 the remaining alleged transactions were made from third-party accounts, whose account holders have neither lodged any complaint nor have they been examined as witnesses. It is further contended that none of the alleged cheated amounts have been credited to the account of the present applicant, no financial benefit has accrued to him, and there exists no financial nexus between the applicant and the alleged proceeds of crime. The implication of the applicant rests solely upon the disclosure statements of co-accused persons, which, in the absence of any recovery or discovery attributable to the applicant, have no evidentiary value in law. Learned counsel also submits that the entire prosecution case is based upon documentary and electronic evidence, such as bank statements, account records, digital trails and electronic data, all of which are already in the custody of the investigating agency, leaving no possibility of tampering with the evidence if the applicant is enlarged on bail. It is further argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and no specific allegation of inducement, participation, communication or receipt of any cheated amount has been levelled against him. The applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to continue extending such cooperation during the trial. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused, namely, Rohan Kandera (MCRC No.10335/2025), Vishal Yadav (MCRC No.10457/2025), Chetan (MCRC No.10048/2025), and Sandeep and Saurabh (MCRC 5 No.10072/2025), have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2026, and since the role attributed to the present applicant is similar, he is also entitled to the benefit of parity. It is lastly submitted that the learned Trial Court rejected the applicant's bail application by passing a mechanical order without recording any specific finding regarding the individual role attributed to the applicant or independently appreciating the material available against him. The applicant is not a flight risk, is ready to furnish adequate surety, and undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed. It is further submitted that, in compliance with the order dated 17.06.2026 passed by this Court, the Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit detailing the specific role of the present applicant in the organised cyber-fraud syndicate. According to the prosecution, the investigation has established that the applicant, Ankit Gupta, was the principal on-ground operations manager of the MoneyTrade365/SmartTrade365 cyber-fraud network and was working under the directions of the absconding kingpins, Anshul Ginotra and Garvit Jain. It is submitted that the applicant was responsible for managing the India-based operations of the syndicate, including bank accounts, calling agents, operators, 6 transaction management and panel operations. It is further submitted that the investigation conducted through GoDaddy records reveals that the domain SmartTrade365.com, which was used for operating the fraudulent platform, was purchased through a mobile number linked to the applicant by using forged identity documents. The prosecution contends that the technical records prima facie establish that the applicant purchased and controlled the said fraudulent domain. 5. Learned State Counsel further submits that the applicant was apprehended on 30.01.2026 during a police raid conducted at DLF Apartment, Tower-L, Moti Nagar, Delhi, where he was found along with co-accused Gaurav Vohra and Rampukar Sahu @ Chandan while actively operating the fraudulent trading platform. The raid was videographed in the presence of independent witnesses, and several mobile phones and a laptop were seized from his possession. It is submitted that the forensic examination of the seized electronic devices revealed extensive digital evidence connecting the applicant with the operation of the cyber-fraud syndicate. The investigation further shows that the applicant was using multiple encrypted foreign communication numbers and remained in constant contact with co-accused Avnik Mansukhbhai Limbani @ Chirag, the developer of the fraudulent platforms. According to the prosecution, the applicant also disclosed important facts regarding the functioning of the syndicate, which were subsequently corroborated by the 7 statements of other accused persons and the electronic evidence collected during the investigation. 6. Learned State Counsel further submits that the investigation has revealed that the fraudulent platforms handled transactions of approximately Rs.25 to 30 lakhs per day, which is supported by Excel sheets, digital records and other electronic evidence recovered during the investigation. It is also alleged that the applicant acted as an administrator of several WhatsApp and Telegram groups created for managing different aspects of the cyber-fraud operation, thereby demonstrating his managerial role in the syndicate. The applicant is further alleged to have recruited persons for the Dubai-based operations by arranging visas, flight tickets and accommodation, and thereafter trained them in handling bank accounts, digital wallets and online fund transfers. According to the prosecution, after their return to India, the applicant supplied laptops, mobile phones and financial assistance to continue the fraudulent activities from different locations within the country. It is also submitted that the applicant coordinated the procurement and supply of numerous bank accounts through different suppliers, including Piyush Sharma @ Guru, Nitin Ginotra and Ashish Gupta @ Aashu, which were used for receiving the amounts cheated from the victims. 7. Learned State Counsel lastly submits that the WhatsApp chats and other electronic records establish that the applicant supervised the procurement and deployment of bank accounts 8 for the fraudulent platforms and administered a WhatsApp group titled "All Bank Id Password", through which he regularly shared bank account credentials, login IDs and transaction passwords with other members of the syndicate for routing the proceeds of crime. It is further submitted that the applicant coordinated with Siddharth Sikka regarding the transfer of fraud proceeds through QuickWeb and other digital payment platforms between India and Dubai. The bank statements of the account maintained in the name of the applicant's wife, Rakhi Gupta, allegedly reveal that the applicant's share of the proceeds of crime was regularly deposited therein. It is also submitted that several of the bank accounts procured under the applicant's supervision have been linked with numerous cyber-crime complaints registered across different States through the Samanvay Cyber Crime Portal, thereby indicating the nationwide operation of the syndicate. In these circumstances, Learned State Counsel submits that the electronic evidence, digital records, forensic analysis, bank transactions, WhatsApp chats and the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer clearly establish the applicant's central managerial role in the organised cyber-fraud syndicate. Considering the gravity and magnitude of the offence, the organised nature of the crime, the huge financial loss caused to innocent investors and the overwhelming prima facie material collected during the investigation, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. 9 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary, the charge-sheet, and the material available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case, prima facie, reveals the involvement of the present applicants in an organised cyber-fraud syndicate operating through fraudulent online investment and share trading platforms. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Ravi Mohan Goswami, lodged a written complaint before Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja, alleging that unknown persons, by using mobile numbers 8577064555, 8424855648, 8395943211 and 9991991448, induced him to invest money in the share market on the false promise of earning higher returns. Pursuant thereto, the accused persons got installed mobile applications, namely Money Trade 365 and Skytrade, on the complainant's mobile phone and directed him to transfer money through QR Codes provided by them. Acting on such inducement, the complainant transferred a total amount of Rs.21,15,000/- in 84 instalments from his various bank accounts, including his pension accounts, and was cheated of the said amount. On the basis of the complaint, the FIR was registered and the matter was investigated. During the investigation, the police collected electronic evidence, bank transaction details, digital records, witness statements, and other material, which, prima facie, show 10 the active involvement of the present applicants in the alleged offence. The allegations relate to a large-scale organised economic offence involving cheating of innocent investors through fake online trading platforms, resulting in substantial financial loss. Such offences are serious in nature and have a wide impact on public confidence in digital financial transactions. As regards the plea of parity, this Court finds that the role attributed to the present applicants is different and more serious than that of the co-accused who have already been granted bail. The material collected during the investigation prima facie indicates that the present applicants played an active and important role in the operation of the cyber-fraud syndicate. Therefore, their case stands on a different footing from that of the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, and they are not entitled to claim the benefit of parity. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the present applicants, and the material collected during the investigation indicating their prima facie involvement, this Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of regular bail is made out. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of regular bail to the present applicants, and the bail application is hereby rejected. 10. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants namely, Vicky Kumar @ Anurag (Rocky), Ramdeep Kumar @ Shibu & Nitin Ginotra involved in Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Police 11 Station – Cyber Range Police Station Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4),3(5),317(4),111 of the B.N.S & Section 66 (D) of the I.T. Act & 21(1),21(2),21(3) of the Banning Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, is rejected. 11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 12. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) ChiefJustice vaibhav